The Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms and the Cromwellian Union, 1643-1663 9781317026525, 1317026527

Citation preview

The Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms and the Cromwellian Union, 1643–1663

This book provides the first major analysis of the covenanted interest from an integrated three kingdoms perspective. It examines the reaction of the covenanted interest to the actions and policies of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, drawing particular attention to links, similarities and differences in and between the covenanted interest in all three kingdoms. It also follows the fortunes of the covenanted interest and Presbyterian Church government as it built and changed in response to the Royalists and the Independents during the 1650s. Kirsteen M. MacKenzie is a Lecturer in History at the University of Aberdeen.

Routledge Research in Early Modern History For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com

In the same series: Dynastic Colonialism Gender, Materiality and the Early Modern House of Orange-Nassau by Susan Broomhall and Jacqueline van Gent The Business of the Roman Inquisition in the Early Modern Era by Germano Maifreda Cities and Solidarities Urban Communities in Pre-Modern Europe edited by Justin Colson and Arie van Steensel James VI and Noble Power in Scotland 1578–1603 edited by Miles Kerr-Peterson and Steven J. Reid Conversion and Islam in the Early Modern Mediterranean The Lure of the Other edited by Claire Norton Plural Pasts Power, Identity and the Ottoman Sieges of Nagykanizsa Castle by Claire Norton Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England by Charlotte-Rose Millar Early Professional Women in Northern Europe, c. 1650–1850 edited by Johanna Ilmakunnas, Marjatta Rahikainen, and Kirsi Vainio-Korhonen The Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms and the Cromwellian Union, 1643–1663 by Kirsteen M. MacKenzie

The Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms and the Cromwellian Union, 1643–1663 Kirsteen M. MacKenzie

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Kirsteen M. MacKenzie to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: MacKenzie, Kirsteen M., author. Title: The solemn league and covenant of the three kingdoms and the Cromwellian union, 1643–1663 / by Kirsteen M. MacKenzie. Description: 1st [edition]. | New York : Routledge, 2017. | Series: Routledge research in early modern history | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017028233 (print) | LCCN 2017030525 (ebook) | ISBN 9781315556406 (ebook) | ISBN 9781409418696 (alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Covenanters. | Presbyterian Church—History—17th century. | Cromwell, Oliver, 1599–1658. | Great Britain—Politics and government—1649–1660. | Church and state—England— History—17th century. | Great Britain—History—Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649–1660. | Great Britain—History— Puritan Revolution, 1642–1660. | Scotland—Politics and government—1649–1660. | Religion and politics—Scotland— History—17th century. | Great Britain—History—Civil War, 1642–1649. Classification: LCC BX9081 (ebook) | LCC BX9081 .M33 2017 (print) | DDC 285/.2411—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017028233 ISBN: 978-1-409-41869-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-55640-6 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

For my wonderful parents, Elaine and Roy In memory of Barry Denton M.B.E. and Isobel Love

Contents

List of figures Acknowledgments

ix xi

Introduction1

1 The three kingdoms and the emergence of the anglocentric challenge, 1643–1648

36

2 The failed search for natural and orderly government, 1648–165562 3 Corruption: the emergence of government in the private interest, 1649–165397 4 Negotiating integration and re-establishment, 1653–1656

125

5 Anglo-Scottish defence and Presbyterian fanfare, 1656–1658

151

6 Preservation, restoration and disestablishment, 1658–1663

171

Conclusion

200

Index

205

Figures

I.1 Presbyterian Congregations in Ulster, c.1620s–1646 16 I.2 Presbyterian Church Structure and the County Committee System, c.1648 21 1.1 Manchester and London Fourth Classis Ordinations, 1647–165349 4.1 The Ulster Presbyterian Church, 1653–1655 137 5.1 The Ulster Presbyterian Church, 1654–1660 153 6.1 Presbyterian Church Government in the Three Kingdoms, c.1659 174

Acknowledgments

This book has emerged from a PhD thesis submitted at the University of Aberdeen in 2008 and has evolved substantially over subsequent years. It would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of various libraries, academic colleagues, friends and family. I must give special thanks to Professor Allan Macinnes for encouraging me down the PhD route and for his constant patience, encouragement and positive guidance. I should also like to thank the many members of staff in libraries and archives across the UK and Ireland who have so generously given their help over the past few years. In particular, Martin Smith at the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, who cheerfully addressed any queries and went out of his way to assist me, also the staff at the National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh University Library and the British Library, who persevered with the large copy orders with good grace. Extra special thanks must go to Virginia Russell and the staff at the National Archives of Scotland for their kindness. I must also thank the library staff at the Queen Mother Library and the new Sir Duncan Rice Library at the University of Aberdeen for their kind and very generous assistance over the years. In particular, I would like to thank Noreen Wilson and Helen Skinner of Interlibrary Loans, who dealt with the constant stream of requests with kindness, efficiency and patience. I am also indebted to Mr Lawrence McLean for his guidance on digital mapping. In addition, I have received much encouragement, support and advice from various academic colleagues during this time. I should like to thank Professor Ann Hughes, Dr David L Smith of Selwyn College, Cambridge, Dr Robert Armstrong, Dr David Menarry, Jo March-Veitzke and Dr Elliot Vernon. I have also benefited greatly from the support and friendship of Dr Patrick Little, Dr Jason Peacey and Dr Derek Patrick, who encouraged my postdoctoral endeavours, especially when the road ahead seemed incredibly difficult. I am also highly indebted to Professor John Morrison, Professor Robert Frost and Professor Karin Friedrich, who have supported my academic development in recent years, and I am extremely grateful for all the opportunities they have given me.

xii Acknowledgments Lastly, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my friends and family for their constant support and patience. To Marjory Brenchley and Barry Denton, a ‘promise is a promise’. I am deeply indebted to Isobel Love, who started the fascination with Cromwell but never lived to see what it would become, and to Lillian Barraud, a very special friend who has travelled down this road with me longer than most. The biggest thanks must go to my parents, Roy and Elaine, for their constant encouragement, support and love. Their financial generosity in funding this project has been amazing. My mother deserves an extra special mention; she, more than anyone, has seen this project come together and has accompanied me on many archival trips outside Aberdeen, sometimes driving long distances and then often at a loose end whilst the research was taking place. Her patience, understanding and generosity throughout the whole process have been incredible.

Introduction

In September 1650, a discussion took place between Sir Walter Dundas, governor of Edinburgh Castle, and Oliver Cromwell regarding the Scottish ministers sheltering within the castle walls. Amongst the issues discussed were the continuing obligations of both England and Scotland under the Solemn League and Covenant. In a letter to Cromwell, Dundas declared, ‘The contents of these papers do concern the public differences betwixt you and these of the three kingdoms who have faithfully adhered to the Solemn League and Covenant’. ‘These of the three kingdoms’ not merely referred to the ministers sheltering within the castle walls who remained loyal to the Covenants but to a covenanted interest across the three kingdoms. Not only did the ministers lament their own condition, but they feared for their brethren in England and Ireland. The Scottish Covenanters saw themselves as part of a wider covenanted interest. The Solemn League and Covenant, the document which bound them together, aimed to promote and preserve the reformed religion in the three kingdoms through military and political means by establishing a legal and constitutional settlement across the kingdoms.1 Much has been written on the ‘Covenanted Interest’ during the midseventeenth century. Amongst English historians, there has been a growing call to view English Presbyterians in a more positive light by highlighting their efforts in promoting godly reformation, despite the slow and piecemeal attempts by the Long Parliament to establish Presbyterian Church government as the reformed religion in England.2 Edward Vallance has shown that Covenants were important features of English political and religious life throughout the seventeenth century. Most recent accounts tackle English Presbyterianism and the Covenants on their own terms focusing on Presbyterian Church government in local contexts or with analysis-focused rivalry with the English Independents’ outside forces with little recourse to the support structures and bonds which existed between the covenanted interest throughout the three kingdoms.3 Scottish Presbyterian historiography still dominates discussion on the ‘covenanted interest’ in Scotland; however, recently, a more critical approach has been taken towards the Covenanting movement by Laura Stewart. John

2 Introduction Young and Allan Macinnes have highlighted that the Scottish Covenanters were adept politicians, military men and lawyers during the 1640s. In the 1650s, Scottish covenanted interest is often judged within the context of the internal splits within the Scottish Kirk or, most recently, its success or failure is measured against the infiltration of liberty of conscience disrupting established forms of worship at a national or parish level.4 Arguably, there needs to be a wider appreciation of all aspects of the Scottish covenanting revolution during the 1650s, one which looks beyond religion and worship and takes an integrated three kingdoms approach which highlights that despite their differences and the disruption at a local level, the Scottish covenanted interest did not lose sight of the wider three kingdoms perspective, sharing many ambitions and ideas with their coreligionists. It is within Irish historiography that the covenanted interest has been seen within its widest context encompassing the religious, political, military, social and economic aspects due to its foundations in the plantations of Ireland and the Protestant ascendency. It is also here that the links between Ulster and the other kingdoms, particularly Scotland, have been explored.5 This monograph will provide the first major analysis of the covenanted interest from an integrated three kingdoms perspective. It will examine the reaction of the covenanted interest to the actions and policies of the Commonwealth and Protectorate from an integrated three kingdoms perspective, drawing particular attention to links, similarities and differences in and between all three kingdoms. This monograph will also follow the fortunes of the covenanting revolution as it builds and changes in response to the two opposing forces, Royalism and Independency, during the 1650s. Beginning with the establishment of the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643, it will challenge the traditional narrative of the civil wars by viewing events from the perspective of the covenanted interest. In doing so, it will view the rise of Oliver Cromwell and the Independents from a fresh perspective and introduce the important issues and concerns that were to plague the covenanted interest until the Restoration in 1660. It will examine the shift in allegiances which took place in the late 1640s and early 1650s as the covenanted interest found itself under siege by both the Independents and the Royalists. It will address the varied positions of the ‘covenanted interest’ in a comparative context. It will offer a new perspective on the English Commonwealth, one which highlights the corruption and the disfunctionality of the English government across the kingdoms. It will also explain why the Royalists and Presbyterians failed to create an effective and mutually beneficial alliance between 1645 and 1655 which was central to the survival of the English Republic. The final part of the monograph will address how and why the covenanted interest sought to accommodate itself with the Cromwellian Protectorate, leading to a resurgence of the covenanted interest in 1659–1660. It will explore the government’s active integration of the covenanted interest into the Cromwellian establishment, outlining the reasons for doing so and

Introduction  3 the extent to which the government was successful in its objectives. It will highlight the emergence of the ‘covenanted interest’ as a significant group throughout the 1650s, offset by the increasing marginalisation of radical elements in church and state. This allowed for the resurrection of the pursuit of the ‘covenanted monarch’ at the Restoration. Sadly, as the restoration settlement will show, these ambitions were quickly suppressed, but the fortunes of the covenanted interest in the 1650s directly impacted on the difficulties the restoration governments had in integrating the covenanted interest into the establishment. Overall, this book will provide a fresh and alternative account of the turbulent decades of the mid-seventeenth century

The Covenants and Presbyterian Church government before 1643 The concept of the Covenant and Presbyterian Church government existed in all three kingdoms before 1643. Indeed, many of the themes and problems which many reformers and Presbyterians grappled with in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries reared their heads again in 1650s, albeit under very different circumstances. The concept of the Covenant developed gradually before 1638 as part of a shared Anglo-Protestant culture formed in reaction to the ambitions of the Spanish empire. The shared language of Protestantism became the vehicle for closer relations between England and Scotland before and after the Union of the Crowns in 1603, shaping ideals of a unified destiny for both countries. Both countries widely used the Geneva Bible, and reformers exchanged ideas between both countries. Despite these common features, it did not compensate for the differences between church government and how each country saw its own role in the final days.6 In England, the concept of the Covenant as a religious oath appeared during the reign of Edward VI, with Protestants extolling the King to renew the nation’s covenant with God, and under Edward’s successor, Mary Tudor, the Covenant became a defensive tool against her Catholic policies. The Edwardian Reformation had been the entry point of England’s renewal of its Covenant with God. John Knox, the famous Scottish reformer, shared this belief that England had indeed renewed its Covenant with the Lord. The idea of the Covenant in England continued throughout the reign of Elizabeth I via oaths of association which were seen as a renewal of the original vows the nation had taken with God. In 1606, oaths of association became related to the fight against the papal antichrist after the Gunpowder Plot. In 1621, against the backdrop of the Thirty Years’ War, John Pym, later the leading proponent of the Solemn League and Covenant, requested oaths of association should be renewed.7 The concept of the Covenant in Scotland underwent a process of transition from the beginnings of the Scottish Reformation to the National Covenant of 1638. During this period Scotland developed a providential view of itself, pulling between the ambitions for a union with England and

4 Introduction autonomy of Scotland’s distinct culture. Like many Englishmen, many Scots believed they were living in the latter days and developed an apocalyptic world view.8 Knox recognised both England and Scotland were different and that God had intended a diversity of nations to be upheld, but Knox also actively pursued an Anglo-Scottish Protestant culture in response to the dominating and monolithic ambitions of the Spanish empire, seeing the empire as ‘unnatural’ because it did not recognise a diversity of cultures. The Scottish reformer Andrew Mellville sought to replace this ‘universal’ empire with confederation.9 The major problem for the Scottish reformers was how to connect the Scottish Reformation to Scottish law. The effective application and enforcement of the law was central to the Scottish Reformation. The Covenant ideal in Scotland became associated with codification of the law and bringing stability to a country where law enforcement had been difficult. Many Scottish Presbyterians were interested in Scots law but had adopted English legal ideas, such as the importance of Parliament and an independent aristocracy free from corruption by the Crown. George Buchannan, a key Scottish reformer, was influential in promoting the idea that the law was stronger than the King and that Scotland’s monarchy had always been conditional. As Arthur Williamson states, the National Covenant in 1638 emerged as an ‘unrivalled authority’ pulling together the corpus of Scots law. The National Covenant also upheld an independent aristocracy and reformed faith from an overbearing crown.10 It is clear that the document’s authors, Edinbugh lawyer Archibald Johnston of Wariston and Fife minister Alexander Henderson, were careful to provide the legal bedrock to prove they were not rebellious subjects. The legal ‘bedrock’ of the Covenant lay in the oath taken by King James and his household in 1580 and by all subjects of Scotland in 1581 to uphold the true religion. This oath was cited because it showed that the monarchy had taken an oath to preserve the Kirk and its religion, an oath which Charles I was still bound by. It reaffirmed that those adhering to the Covenant were loyal subjects, preserving the King’s powers and upholding the laws of Scotland. They were renewing the 1581 band for the defence of religion and continuing the Scottish custom of ‘bands’ which had been central to establishing loyalty to Protestantism since the early days of the Scottish Reformation.11 Following this legal justification for their actions, the authors proceeded to argue that the Kirk was one of the best reformed churches in Europe and that the King and the Estates of Scotland were responsible for its preservation. Therefore, the King’s innovations in worship contradicted the earlier pledges made by his father. In addition, they warned the King about the Catholic Church and the ‘anti-Christian’ threat it posed to the Reformed Kirk. This was because the Kirk’s established practices were rooted in the Word of God, in contrast to the Church of Rome, whose practices lacked any divine warrant. The King had a duty to defend the Kirk against Catholicism through the laws passed by the Scottish Parliament under his father.

Introduction  5 The King was warned that his innovations in worship contradicted his father’s legislation upon the Union of the Crowns, which pledged to recognise the distinct political, religious and cultural aspects of England and Scotland. The King had a duty to defend the Reformed worship of Scotland from innovations by upholding the Acts of Parliament and the Confession of Faith. Overall, these paragraphs in the Covenant reminded the King that he and his subjects were governed firstly by the will of God and secondly by the King. Both subject and sovereign had a responsibility to uphold the Scottish Reforrned faith and to provide good government. Charles I was an elected monarch accountable to the people and to God.12 Indeed, according to the authors of the Covenant, the Reformed gospel is a pure gospel and therefore should not be tarnished by innovations that would bring in an element of corruption. The King’s innovations suggested a reintroduction of the Catholic Church into Scotland as an openly tolerated faith. The Covenant is necessary because the people will be answerable to God at the Day of Judgement, and, therefore, they need to uphold the Scottish Reformed faith. People’s loyalty to the King was conditional on the King’s willingness to protect the Scottish Reformation for God’s ‘covenanted’ or chosen people.13 However, as the Covenant did not directly attack the bishops nor name any specific element of the King’s religious policies, the authors calculated that a direct attack on the King’s religious policies would split opposition rather than unite it. It was only after the King’s continued stubbornness that they switched from a limited Episcopacy to a full-blown Presbyterian system. Unlike the later Solemn League and Covenant, this did not outline a blueprint for the setting up of institutions to facilitate mutual cooperation between England and Scotland and, as John Morrill states, ‘there is nothing in the Covenant which would lead to a redefinition of Union’.14 The National Covenant of 1638 and the defence of the Scottish Reformed faith were rooted in a specific Presbyterian perspective on how the Scottish Reformation had developed. This perspective did not reflect the reality of the past, of a Reformation which was built around a reformed episcopate. Presbyterianism gradually developed in response to James I forcibly bringing the Scottish episcopate in line with its English Erastian counterpart.15 During the reign of Elizabeth I, English Presbyterianism developed within the wider Puritan movement. It was shaped by dialogues between Presbyterians and Separatists. These Separatists wanted to reform the church outside its existing structure, but English Presbyterians wanted to mould the existing church structure in a Presbyterian form. In the 1580s, English Presbyterians had envisioned a system from bottom to top: parish, classis or presbytery, provincial assembly, national assembly and their greatest ideal, a universal synod. During this period, exiles and Oxbridge men met in conferences in and around London and East Anglia. These were purely clerical organisations which became the early classes used to promote unity of belief amongst members. In 1586, Presbyterians tried ratify this form of church

6 Introduction government by the English Parliamentary statute. Symbolic of these efforts was the First Book of Discipline, later printed by the English Parliament during the 1640s. In 1588, the English Presbyterian movement became scattered; however, recent research has shown it did not disappear completely.16 Polly Ha has proven that English Presbyterianism from 1590 to 1640 was a credible force, even though it was not fully organised or extensive. English Presbyterianism owes its survival to the networks which English Presbyterians had developed in Europe and the colonies powered by strong mercantile communities. This was particularly the case in Amsterdam, where well-known ministers in the 1650s, such as Thomas Paget, Robert Jennison, John Brinsley and Simeon Ashe, had meetings to appoint ministers. English Presbyterians, at home and abroad, were often engaged in debates with the Church of England, using English common law and parliamentary statute to argue a valid legal stance. Only in London was there any sense of organisation amongst Presbyterians, but their thoughts and ideas were fully developed.17 Ha’s research concurs with the beginnings of Presbyterianism in Ireland, where Walter Travers, the renowned English Presbyterian, became Provost of Trinity College Dublin. Although his influence was limited, he did educate the celebrated Archbishop James Ussher, who was well disposed towards Scottish ministers in Ulster, allowing the church to grow.18 The Plantation in Ulster from 1609 onwards encouraged the settlement of both Scots and English settlers which opened up opportunities for ministers to cross the North Channel. The plantation underpinned Presbyterianism in Ulster which followed on from the Kirk’s proactive attitude in establishing Protestantism in the Highlands. During the early days of plantation, it was a Presbyterianism whereby Scottish and English Presbyterians preached and coexisted side by side that was tolerated within the Anglican Church of Ireland. Scottish forms of worship took place within an English Erastian structure. The ministers engrossed themselves in the Anglican Church administration by accepting tithes and money from patrons. Many ministers were fiery preachers who had been ejected from Scotland or England on account of their religious views. However, when they had arrived in Ulster, they found that their ministries were not always settled. For solidarity, ministers in Antrim and Down arranged a monthly meeting on the first Friday of every month and gave sermons for leading members of the landed elite and were actively involved in disputes with Separatists. Many of these men were young, enthusiastic ministers at the beginning of their career with a certain drive and ambition to succeed.19 From the signing of the National Covenant in 1638 to the establishment of the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643, the formation of networks and contacts between England, Ireland and Scotland took place in pursuit of closer cooperation and religious reform. Certainly in Scotland, reform was to take place along Presbyterian lines, whereas in England and Ireland, the path of reform was not explicitly stated, but as events developed, it was clear that the Presbyterian form of church government was a serious

Introduction  7 option. Those in favour of Presbyterian reform were to play a key role in networks and actions across the kingdoms which brought the Solemn League and Covenant into being. The Scottish Parliament reconvened on 19 November 1640, and there was no royally appointed commissioner. The Parliament consolidated its powers by introducing procedural rules and regulations, including a president of the parliament which had to be elected by the members themselves.20 Charles I had a Scottish parliament which organised itself independently of the Crown. The desire for a parliament which could curtail the excesses of Royal policy had taken hold in England, too, and these efforts by the English Parliament drove the Catholic population in Ireland to seek similar constitutional changes and constitutional change spread rapidly across the three Stuart kingdoms. A Scottish army stationed in the north of England forced Charles I to call an English parliament in April 1640, after an 11-year hiatus, known as the ‘Short Parliament’. The reconvening of the English Parliament was an opportunity for the King’s opponents to air their grievances. The Scottish Covenanters had built up networks since the mid-1630s, with those who sought further Protestant reformation and who opposed the policies of Charles I. These networks stretched from England to Ireland and across to the Netherlands. One of the main instigators was Sir John Clotworthy, an Ulster planter of English lineage, who was a committed Presbyterian.21 The Royalists suspected that opponents were exchanging information and trying to promote their cause in England.22 Although the National Covenant is considered a Scottish document, it is clear, even at this early stage, that defence of the Scottish Reformed faith included an exportation of Covenanting aspirations into England to protect and encourage reformation in both kingdoms.23 During the negotiations over the Treaty of Ripon, which put a formal end to the Bishops’ Wars, the Scots forced Charles I to call another English Parliament whilst their army remained on English soil. This parliament was called on 3 November 1640 and became known as the Long Parliament.24 As historians have remarked, the Long Parliament took its lead from the Scottish Parliament and enacted a similar constitutional revolution on English soil, a revolution which questioned the legality of the King’s religious policies in England and swept away the bishops in readiness for reform. Between November 1640 and October 1641, only one major piece of constitutional legislation was passed, the Triennial Act of February 1641, which was similar to an act passed by the Scottish Parliament which stated that Charles I should call a parliament every three years. Like the Scottish Parliament, the English Parliament became a fixed and regular institution, regardless of the wishes of the monarch, and the English Parliament increased its independence, renegotiating its relationship with the Crown. This change was spearheaded by an informal group of Puritans led by John Pym. As Charles Prior has argued, the introduction of the Cannons in the autumn of 1640 gave John Pym the ideal opportunity to attack the King’s religious

8 Introduction policies. Like the Covenanters, Pym and his allies argued that the King’s policies were illegal and questioned the Crown’s ability to enforce the law. Pym and his allies also declared that parliament was the supreme institution to defend English law and reformation. Like Edinburgh in 1638, riots and protests were organised in London to protest against the King’s religious policies.25 However, there was less unity on church reform in the Long Parliament than there had been amongst the Covenanted Scots. Like the Council in Edinburgh a few years earlier, the Long Parliament was flooded with petitions calling for the end of Episcopacy. The most significant of these was the root and branch petition submitted in December 1640, which was signed by 15,000 Londoners, and similar petitions were submitted from 20 counties in England. The root and branch petition was debated in Parliament in February 1640, but there was a division over the abolition of Episcopacy, and opposition was not as organised or contrived as the debates in Glasgow in 1638. Despite this, a bill removing bishops from secular employment went though both houses on 1 May 1640. Significantly, there was no agreement on what was to be put in place once the bishops had been removed. Unlike Scotland, there was no recourse to a fully developed religious narrative which was integrated into the national tradition of reformation. The opportunity to create a Covenant for England arrived with the news of a Popish plot in May 1640. This allowed Pym the opportunity to convince the House to enforce an oath in defence of the monarch and the Reformation. The Protestation Oath fell in line with previous English oaths of association which aimed to defend the monarch and the country against the Catholic threat. This oath did not entail enforcing any particular form of church government but was only used to facilitate the trial and execution of the King’s most hated adviser, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford.26 The execution of Wentworth was achieved with the help of the covenanted interest in Ireland and Scotland. The National Covenant had become a symbol for many Protestant opponents of the King in Ireland. Upon noticing the growing tensions in Scotland due to the Prayer Book, the bishops in Ireland looked at the Presbyterian members of their church with suspicion, cracking down on them and forcing many of them to return to Scotland. Many Scots crossed the sea from Ulster to sign the Covenant, and some of these even took part in the Prayer Book riots in 1637. With the commencement of the Bishops’ Wars, Scottish settlers in Ulster came under suspicion, resulting in attempts by the King’s Lord Deputy in Ireland, Wentworth, to block their settlement in Ireland. As Michael Perceval-Maxwell has shown, Strafford suspected that the King’s Scottish opponents in Ulster not only had links to opponents in Scotland but in England, too. This was indeed the case: for example, John Livingstone, a minister in Ulster had been to London in 1636 to meet leading English Parliamentarians such as Sir Nathaniel Rich, Earl of Warwick. Strafford devised a counteroath to the National Covenant named the ‘Black Oath’ by Scots in Ireland. Many Scots went home rather

Introduction  9 than swear the ‘Black Oath’ which, in Nicholas Canny’s words, ‘caused enduring hatred of godly Protestants in the three kingdoms’.27 Therefore, the National Covenant was recognised by opponents and supporters of the King as the symbol of resistance across the three kingdoms. The agenda by the Scottish and English reformers to renew Protestant religious reformation in Ireland contributed to the tensions in Ulster, leading to the 1641 rising. The rising was in defence of the Catholic religion and monarchical authority in the face of puritan opposition. However, during the rising, the Scottish settlers in Ulster were inactive in defending their English neighbours and even assisted the Irish, which Nicholas Canny puts down to a long period whereby Scots felt disregarded due to the official favour of English settlers.28 The Covenanters also inspired Catholics to set up their own institutions of government after the rising. Catholic representation in the Irish Parliament declined, which led Catholic nobles to set up a confederation and to tender an oath to defend religion and the King’s prerogative. Confederates, like the Covenanters and reformers in the Long Parliament, were learned in the law and justified their actions on legal grounds, setting up their own central committee in the shape of a Supreme Council. Assemblies were also called, but these were never called parliaments although, to outside observers, they were parliaments in all but name. A constitutional revolution had taken place in Ireland inspired by the Covenanters but very much in line with Catholic traditions, which stood in opposition to the covenanting dynamic.29 In response to this constitutional revolution in Ireland the English Parliament, along with Irish Protestant allies, decided to make a direct intervention in Irish affairs through the passing of the Adventurers’ Act in the first months of 1642. As Patrick Little has argued, this action was constitutionally significant, as the English Parliament was now directly legislating for the kingdom of Ireland. The Adventurers’ Act was passed to pay Scottish soldiers to quell the rebellion in Ireland.30 However, a debate took place in the Commons to discuss whether the Scots, a foreign nation, should defend what was in effect an English dependency. On 2 April 1642, a Scottish army landed in Ulster and with it a group of Scottish Presbyterian ministers who established a base at Carrickfergus. Robert Armstrong has highlighted that the introduction of Presbyterianism to Ulster was not ‘Presbyterianism Imperialism’: Presbyterianism injected into Ulster was not forcefully brow beaten into the Ulster inhabitants, but a grassroots movement with petitions coming from Ulster requesting ministers before the arrival of the army.31 During 1642, the English Parliament’s own military revolution was following in the footsteps of the Scottish Covenanters, justifying the raising of its own forces on the basis of defence. On 12 July 1642, Parliament decided to raise its own army but, in contrast to the Covenanters, the English Parliament had to wrestle with the King for control of military equipment and men. There had been no unifying document amongst the English population, like a National Covenant, that put God before the monarch.

10 Introduction The Protestation had put the monarch and God on equal footing. In addition, the Covenanters could depend on a church structure which enabled recruitment at a parish level, but this was not possible in England, as the Church of England was still loyal to the monarch.32 By December 1642, an administrative revolution had taken place in the English Parliament to overcome the problems of military recruitment. Similar to Scotland, there were unprecedented developments in establishing executive committees to coordinate the war effort. Before 1640, parliamentary committees had been used for the wording of bills, election irregularities and matters of privilege, but in 1642, defence committees began to organise the war effort, payment and supplies and direct overall military strategy. John Pym, the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, was deeply involved in setting up the committees and the Oath of Secrecy, which allowed Pym to secure political backing. As the war effort progressed, it became clear that the committees could not cope with the workload and the speed with which they had to work. Lotte Glow has argued that the intervention of the Scottish Covenanters in the English Parliamentary war effort was triggered by failures in committee management.33 The war was not going well for the English Parliament. The battle of Edgehill in October 1642 gave no advantage to either side, and during the first six months of 1643, the English Parliament suffered major defeats at the hands of the Royalists in the North, West Midlands and the South West of England. In London, intense squabbles tore the parliamentary leadership apart. This was the motivation behind John Pym’s drive to create an alliance with the Scottish Covenanters.34 The turbulent events which took place in Scotland and the signing of the National Covenant in 1638 had far-reaching consequences, not just for Scotland, but throughout the three kingdoms. A multitude of changes took place, legal, religious and military, which, in turn, led to further far-reaching constitutional, administrative and military changes. This led to changes in the relationship between the Crown and the Parliaments of the three kingdoms, with legal and religious institutions, military armies and parliaments operating largely independently of the Crown. Procedure and process, underpinned by law, were evident in all institutions. The importance of the law, discipline and procedure underpinned the actions of the covenanted interest in the three kingdoms for decades to come.

A Solemn League and Covenant for the three kingdoms The Solemn League and Covenant agreed in September 1643 was an idealistic blueprint for a union between all three kingdoms. The document encouraged subscribers to foster a federative union between the kingdoms. Scotland and England had to respect the laws, constitutions and customs of each country whilst encouraging mutual cooperation between the English Parliament and the Scottish Covenanters to enable a religious reformation

Introduction  11 across the three kingdoms. There were also hopes they could encourage the King to sanction the new order. This order was facilitated as a three kingdoms enterprise as institutions were created to coordinate various aspects of the alliance. The committees of both kingdoms, one situated in London, conducted the main business of directing the war effort, coordinating money and supplies, collecting intelligence, directing the armies and enforcing rules and regulations. Institutions were also erected to facilitate a reformed church throughout the three kingdoms. The three areas for reform were the ministry, the universities and liturgy, and in each of the three kingdoms, bodies were set up to design and enact a reformed church. In Scotland, the General Assembly, with the sanction of the Scottish Parliament, sought to displace bishops loyal to the King and plant ministers well disposed to the Covenanting regime. In addition, the Covenanters set up visitations for the universities to ensure a steady stream of loyal, educated ministers. Lastly, they aimed to create and publish a liturgy that could be used in the reformed churches throughout the three kingdoms. Likewise, the English Parliament created bodies to enact a reformation within England, and the Westminster Assembly was convened to design a new reformed church within England. The Assembly managed to draft legislation and liturgy well disposed to an English Classical Presbyterian system which was passed onto the English Parliament for legislative endorsement. Furthermore, the English Parliament set up its own means to eject ministers loyal to the Church of England and plant those well disposed towards Parliament. The bodies created were part of the Westminster Parliament’s committee system and were first instituted as early as 1640. They were the Committee for Scandalous Ministers for the planting of ministers and later the Committee for Plundered Ministers, which sought to reform how ministers were paid. Between 1644 and 1647, the English Parliament embarked on a reform of Cambridge and Oxford universities. In Ireland, the Presbytery in Ulster, with the assistance of the General Assembly in Scotland, recruited and planted ministers. It has been commonly stated that during the negotiations, the English Parliament was looking for a secular contract and the Scottish Covenanters were looking for a religious covenant. The Covenant was far more complex, as it was a comprehensive blueprint which aimed to protect the laws, constitutional and religious reforms which had already taken place throughout the three kingdoms, in addition to promoting a reformation in England and Ireland. However, the Solemn League and Covenant’s most immediate purpose was as a tool to recruit men into the armies and to consolidate English parliamentary support in the face of the King’s cessation with the Confederate Catholics. The Solemn League and Covenant was a document of priorities. This is evident in the title paragraph: ‘A Solemn League and Covenant [For 1.] Reformation and Defence of Religion, [2.] the honour and happiness of the King [3.] the peace and safety of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland’. All people in the three kingdoms, from

12 Introduction noblemen and ministers to the Commons, were defending the true religion by their subscription. By doing so, the authors of the Solemn League and Covenant hoped to ‘glory God’ by their actions. The Reformation would have to differ depending on the state of the churches in each kingdom. The Church of Ireland was ‘in a deplorable state’, along with the kingdom itself. This was not just a criticism levelled at Catholics in Ireland for the rebellion of 1641 but also a critical denouncement upon the Church of Ireland for its failure to reform. The Church of England was a church in distress, along with the kingdom: a verdict on Laudian policies and the stalemate of war in England. The fully Protestant and Reformed Scottish Kirk was in a ‘dangerous’ state because of the threat of corruptions coming from England, the undefeated malignant Royalist forces in Scotland and the threat of invasion from Ireland.35 The subscribers swore under God to preserve the Reformed religion in Scotland in ‘doctrine, worship, discipline and government’. This pledge to preserve the worship of Scotland was an oath which English allies were bound to subscribe and adhere to. In addition, the English Parliament was bound by the terms of the agreement to embark on a reformation in England and Ireland. This is notable because the Solemn League and Covenant sees no role for the Irish Parliament. The agreement implies that Ireland is a kingdom dependent upon England which is to be governed by the English Parliament. The position of the monarch in relation to these processes is ambiguous. The English Parliament is bound to promote the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland to bring ‘the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for worship and catechising’. This did not mean conformity to Scottish Presbyterianism, but rather, as legislative plans later revealed, each kingdom would be governed by its own form of Presbyterian Church. In theory, at least for some, England would establish the ‘Classical’ Presbyterian system. In Ireland, because of existing Scottish settlement in the north, church government would conform to the Scottish style of Presbyterianism. In order to achieve their goal subscribers to the Covenant would work to eradicate Catholicism in the three kingdoms. The Church of England and the Church of Ireland would be abolished to make way for a Presbyterian Reformation consisting of classes and presbyteries.36 Constitutionally, subscribers also pledged to preserve the rights and privileges of the parliaments and the liberties of the kingdoms. This clause refers to the English and Scottish Parliaments, but not to the Irish Parliament.37 Subscribers also pledged to defend the King’s person and his authority and not to diminish his power and authority over the three kingdoms. As proof of these pledges, subscribers were to punish malignants, those who wilfully opposed the Covenant and those who hindered the Reformation of religion, divided the King from his people, divided each kingdom one from the other or created factions and parties amongst the people. In order to achieve this,

Introduction  13 England and Scotland were to work together in a spirit of peace and mutual cooperation. Therefore, England had a responsibility to come to the aid of the Covenanted in Scotland, with Scotland having a similar responsibility towards England. As will be seen, the ‘Covenanted Interest’ in the three Stuart kingdoms repeatedly referred back to the clauses in this document, and they are central to our understanding of the ‘Covenanted Interest’ throughout the three Stuart kingdoms.38 However, the Solemn League and Covenant also had a more practical function as an aid to the recruitment of men into the Covenanting armies. Describing the response to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland, Robert Baillie, a leading covenanting minister, declared, ‘with a marvellous uniamitie was this evrie were received’.39 Interestingly, Baillie described the Solemn League and Covenant as the ‘English’ Covenant, in recognition that Scotland was already ‘covenanted’ with God. The Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland was closely related to the raising of an army to help the English Parliament. Indeed, to Royalist observers, the Solemn League and Covenant was a declaration of war against the King, a military pact, not a religious document. As John Spalding, the Royalist commentator, noted, in addition to signatures on the Covenant, ministers had rolls of fencible men. It was ordered that every man who could write should subscribe, and for men who could not write, the Clerk of Session would write their names on their behalf. Women were asked to subscribe by the raising of hands. The Kirk strongly discouraged dissent by excommunicating those who refused. Baillie admitted that the Solemn League and Covenant was a direct response to the Irish Cessation between the King and the Irish Confederation.40 In the words of Robert Armstrong, the Covenant in Ireland ‘wrenched protestant Ireland apart’, and, conversely, it had been hoped that the Covenant would unite Protestants in Ireland under the cause of the English Parliament.41 This was a serious miscalculation because the Covenant did not appeal to the British settlers in Ireland who preferred the cessation with the Irish Confederates. They had obtained successful victories against the Irish and believed that the peace was achieved without recourse to any covenanted obligations. Furthermore, the British in Ireland preferred Ireland’s governance through the Irish Parliament and the Lord Lieutenant, James Butler, Duke of Ormonde. This, not the Covenant, was the best safeguard for the preservation of the Protestant interest in Ireland.42 However, Edinburgh and Westminster had a different view of Ireland’s place within the Stuart kingdoms, including its constitutional position and the safety of Protestants and reformation. For the English Parliament and the Scottish Covenanters, the Solemn League and Covenant was the best means to assure the safety of Protestant Ireland and the reformation in all three kingdoms. In a Declaration of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament published in October 1643, the root of the destruction of the Protestant interest in Ireland was the rejection of the laws of England. The laws of England were seen as the only way which the British in Ireland

14 Introduction could be properly compensated. Therefore, the English Parliament alone, and not the Irish Parliament, was the true bulwark against the threat from the Catholic Confederates and any Papal conspiracy. It was argued that the Cessation would not preserve the Protestant interest in Ireland but would destroy it completely, since the Irish rebellion had shown that Irish Catholics could no longer be trusted to leave their Protestant neighbours in peace. The Covenant was used to override an alternative British ‘royalist’ settlement which threatened the English Parliament’s payment of soldiers through the Adventurers’ settlement.43 There were two major linchpins in the effort to push the Solemn League and Covenant in Ulster. The first was the gentle persuasion by General Robert Munro, Commander of the Scottish forces in Ulster, and then the more assertive tactics by Scottish ministers by withholding the sacraments if parishioners did not subscribe.44 No wonder Patrick Adair, contemporary and the author of one of the first histories of Presbyterianism in Ireland, declared, ‘The Covenant was taken in all places with great affection’. However, it may be telling that the oath was administered very carefully so that people understood what they were taking. Firstly, they cleared people’s consciences of previous oaths, such as the Black Oath, in order to avoid troubled consciences. Secondly, they carefully backed up the Covenant with scripture and explained the consequences of taking the oath, going through every article with their congregations. Despite Adair’s optimism, they were going for the hard sell. Unlike their Scottish counterparts, they did not have easy access to a printing press and therefore much work had to be done by a mixture of verbal persuasion and armed presence. Adair admitted that some took it with ‘a great appearance of desire and affection – some really and others went along’. This attitude reflects the fact that the Covenant was tendered to the Protestant British armies of Ulster within the context of a ‘supply war’ between King and Parliament. Subsistence and survival was the number one priority regardless of which side came up with the goods. The English Parliament and the Covenanting government made a concerted effort and drew many to the Covenant, and it was openly acknowledged by Munro and the ministers that settlers were signing up on the grounds of expediency.45 In England, the Solemn League and Covenant was being used in a variety of contexts which sought to consolidate the power of the English Parliament to act as an oath to place those well disposed to the English Parliament into positions of trust, including within the Houses of Parliament, the City of London and the universities of Cambridge and Oxford. Even Royalists had to swear this oath when their estates became compounded.46 During debates at the time, the English Parliament was content to promote a three kingdoms Covenant. In An Exhortation to the taking of the Solemn League and Covenant written by Philip Nye and officially sanctioned by Parliament, events in Scotland were a precedent for the English Parliament to follow. The Scots are a sister nation and an example to look up to and subscribers

Introduction  15 ‘joyne with our brethren of all three kingdomes’. The English Parliament also published a joint declaration between England and Scotland, declaring the whole island to be in a state of danger, but both nations shared a joint providential destiny for reformation. These works emulated the Scottish Covenanters propaganda published in London which advocated a joint league or union against the antichrist founded on the historical precedence of Anglo-Scottish cooperation to further reformation. Looking forward, over the next two years, it has to be questioned how sincere these pamphlets were in trying to promote a three kingdoms agreement or whether the English Parliament was just humouring its allies.47 The Covenanters and the English Parliament had their own individual procedures for reforming the ministry, dispossessing the old order of the bishops and replacing it with a preaching ministry, accountable to a system of church courts from top to bottom: General Assembly/National Synod, Provincial Synods, Presbyteries/Classes, Kirk Sessions/Parishes. In Ireland, where there was a demand for ministers in the North, parishioners would appeal to the General Assembly of Scotland, with ministers in the Scottish Army in Ulster providing support. Reform of the ministry was one of the central features of the Covenanting regime involving the General Assembly, synods, presbyteries, parishes, lay patrons, parliament and burghs. As David Stevenson has highlighted, the Covenanting regime ‘saw the first major purges of the ministry of the reformed kirk’ since the Reformation. The deposition of ministers in Scotland started as early as 1638, and by 1641, there had been 52 depositions.48 The Covenanting regime was blessed with an active lay patronage which promoted a reformed ministry in Scotland. Between 1638 and 1641, the Covenanters ostracised the Bishops and entrants were required to submit to the constitutions of the Kirk and the Covenant before they were admitted.49 ‘The Assemblie ordaines, that if any Expectant shall refuse to subscribe the Covenant, he shall be declared uncapable of a Pedagogie, teaching of a School, reading at a Kirk, Preaching within a Presbytrie, and shall not have a libertie of residing within a Burgh, Universitie or Colledge’.50 The lower Kirk courts were legislatively bound to enact the wishes of the General Assembly. In addition, the Commission of the Kirk would lobby the Scottish Parliament to enact civil legislation to reinforce acts of the Assembly or assist the reformation. As John Young has already commented, the adequate planting of Kirks and stipends fell within Parliament’s remit, including the ownership of property, wealth and land. The Parliament of 1640 assisted the planting of ministers by enacting a transfer of lands with the recommendations of lay patrons and sanctioned by the Scottish Parliament.51 Patrons had to be subscribers to the Covenant, overcoming expressions of Royalist resistance through the non-payment of stipends. The Scottish Parliament also assisted with the organisation of new parishes enacted upon after petitions from the grassroots: parishioners, heritors, or

16 Introduction landed patrons.52 Members of the burghs were Commissioners for the Plantation of the Kirks and the Valuation of Teinds.53 The plantation of Presbyterian ministers in Ulster had changed in character due to the immediate context of the early 1640s. Historians have quite rightly stated that in 1642, the Scottish army provided Presbyterian ministers with security to establish a Scottish form of church government through the means of ‘Presbyterian imperialism’. A counter argument by Robert Armstrong has also highlighted the constant stream of petitions from settlers in Ulster requesting ministers for parishes, with the demand for change coming from below and not imposed from above by the military.54 Whilst historians are correct in their assertions, the fragility of Ulster Presbyterianism in the 1640s has to be fully recognised.

Figure I.1  Presbyterian Congregations in Ulster, c.1620s–1646

Introduction  17 The map highlights that the Scottish army only provided a supporting role in order to re-establish parishes that had been abandoned during the 1641 rebellion, with few new parishes created during this time. Furthermore, it is clear that from 1642 to 1645, despite the constant requests to the General Assembly in Scotland, ministers were not forthcoming. Former ministers from Ulster, such as Blair and Livingston, returned purely in a supervisory role, three months at a time and on rotation. Some of the requests for ministers were denied by the General Assembly of Scotland after months of waiting, either due to a genuine shortage of personnel or a fear of upsetting the English Parliament, as Ireland was an English dependency.55 Indeed, one has to question the effectiveness of the army and the petitions when examining the creation of parishes within Ulster before 1646. As the map shows, the majority of parishes newly established were either established on the foundations of the pre-1641 parishes or not far from the pre-1641 parishes. In fact, the majority of parishes were close together, confirming the ability of Presbyterians in Ulster to use conventicling to travel from congregation to congregation which greatly assisted the formation of parishes. It also has to be noted that the Army backed Presbyteries such as Antrim and Carrickfergus, and those were again founded on pre-1641 parishes, with the army Presbytery at Newry looking more like a military outpost rather than an active participant in the establishment of Presbyterianism. Although the church did make small inroads into Route and Donegal, on the whole, the church had only re-established and consolidated pre-1641 structures based on the continued dominance of major landowners in Antrim and Down, such as the Hamiltons, Clotwothys and Montgomerys. Independents in the region did not pose a threat because Presbyterians relished confronting them. The serious challenge came from a singularly established ‘English’ Presbytery in Route which sought to govern itself separately from the Scottish General Assembly, but it was eventually persuaded into the Scottish structure by 1646. The establishment of Ulster Presbyterianism chimed with English parliamentary propaganda. The petitions of the inhabitants requesting ministers were published as they assisted English Parliamentary ambitions to assert its constitutional authority over Ireland.56 In England, there was an anxious attempt by the majority in the Westminster Assembly to publish the Directory of Ordination to stall increasingly intestinal debates within the Assembly and suppress sects. The ordination of ministers was discussed in the Assembly before any agreement on church government had been taken. Again, as before, a minority of members within the Assembly tried to subvert regulations and overturn majority decisions. In August 1644, the House of Commons passed a paper on ordination which Baillie declared a ‘great step in the advance of our affairs’. However, the Commons was beset by delays, giving the Independents time to undermine established procedure. In September 1644, following established procedure, ‘reasons’ were sent up to the House of Commons for approval.

18 Introduction Philip Nye, a leading Independent, questioned how they could dissent from such procedures, as they were told it could not be done unless the Independents produced valid reasons for doing so. The majority feared the influence of the minority, as false reports could be circulated before a vote took place, and Nye threatened to take their dissent ‘another way’ from established procedure.57 Supporters of Presbyterian ordination organised a debate to corner the minority, and as a result, the Independents faced an alliance of English and Scottish members of the Assembly supported by members of the House of Commons. In August 1644, the Earl of Manchester, along with Simeon Ashe, urged the Assembly to work on ordination, whilst Scottish members passed on letters from the General Assembly. Throughout August and September 1644, Assembly members managed to get the House to sanction an orderly way to enter into the ministry: trials, examination and ordination. Commons members, including Francis Rous, came to the debates and supported Lazarus Seaman against the Independents. Ordination was voted on, but out of fear of upsetting the House of Commons, ordination by preaching Presbyters was passed without the imposition of hands. Rous returned to the Commons with a statement on the affair to seek some form of conclusion, but on the same day, Mr Marshall, a leading figure in favour of the Independents, delivered a request for a Committee of Accommodation to seek toleration for other forms of worship.58 However, the activities of a non-member allowed the Independents to seriously challenge the authority of the Assembly. Having recently arrived in London, Oliver Cromwell brought an order into the House of Commons requesting that the Committee of the Lords and Commons treat with Commissioners of Scotland to discuss toleration for tender consciences. Robert Baillie declared this to be a ‘high’ and unexpected order, with the Scottish commissioners kept in the dark.59 With Cromwell present in the Commons, Baillie noted it was more difficult to gain feedback on reports, seeing it as a ruse to accommodate the Independents into the religious settlement which enabled the overturning of the majority of votes in the Assembly via an Act of Parliament. In October 1644, the House of Commons did grant Cromwell and the Independents their request to discuss differences between the parties, but no Scots were members of this ‘grand committee,’ a committee dominated by Independents. English members of the Assembly who favoured a Presbyterian settlement did not join this committee, angry at the exclusion of the Scots.60 Despite this, on 3 October 1644, the Assembly published the Directory for Ordination which, according to the rules of the Assembly, was to bring debates to a close, but the Independents had managed to establish extraordinary procedures to subvert the rules and votes in the Assembly.61 One major weakness of the English Classical system was the haphazard way the legislation was passed by the English Parliament. This is brought into sharp focus when we briefly compare it to the order of legislation

Introduction  19 passed by the Scottish General Assembly and ratified by the Scottish Parliament. It is clear that the Scottish General Assembly took a conscious, structured approach to the creation of the legislation which gave the church its authority and a framework upon which to build. Over the first three years, between 1638 and 1641, it concentrated on demolishing the old order of the Bishops and rooting out those ministers who were not loyal to the Covenanting cause. The old liturgy was banned, and there was an abolition of idolatrous monuments. Between 1642 and 1646, a constant stream of legislation re-affirmed many of the previous acts to protect church government from the sectaries and Episcopalians alike, on a national level. The contrast with the legislation passed by the English Parliament could not be starker. There was no logical order to the legislation on church government, with legislation piecemeal and localised. Between 1643 and 1644, the Parliament set up the Assembly of Divines and passed ordinances for the abolishing of idols. Ambitions for a reformed ministry at that point were limited to Yorkshire and Lancaster, the former as a result of pressure from Lord Fairfax, and the latter through petitioning by ministers. Even when the debates in the Westminster Assembly were beginning to bear fruit, legislation was still haphazard and piecemeal. Interestingly, there were no plans to set up classes in Wales, even though the Directory of Worship was to be used in Wales. Therefore, propagation of the gospel was to be the priority, not the establishment of a classis structure. Those qualified to perform ordinations were nominated by the English Parliament, and the basic rules governing the ordination of ministers were broadly similar to Scotland. Candidates had to prove they had taken the Covenant, had to be university educated and put through trials to test their knowledge of the gospel and their ability to preach by fellow Presbyterian ministers and congregations. It also gave directions on conducting baptism, the Lord’s Supper, observance of the Sabbath and marriage ceremonies. On the same day that new guidelines for the Church were issued, an Act of Attainder was passed to bring the Archbishop of Canterbury to trial and execution to signify the ushering in of the new faith. Finally, six months later, Parliament passed legislation for the election of elders in the new Church. This only outlined a basic classical structure for London and effectively left the division of the rest of the country in the hands of Parliament, which would advise on how to construct the rest of the system.62 In 1648, the Long Parliament passed two significant acts on the religious settlement in England and Wales. The first was in January, An ordinance for the speedy dividing and setling the several Counties of this Kingdom, into distinct Presbyteries and Congregational Elderships, and the second in August, An ordinance for the Form of Church Government to be used in the Churches of England and Ireland, agreed upon by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, after Advice, had with the Assembly of Divines. The first act, passed in January 1648, declared the English Parliament’s supreme authority in constructing a national church structure and

20 Introduction that Parliament was to approve the bounds of each classis, ministers and elders, in addition to fixing the boundaries of the provincial assemblies.63 However, the ultimate expression of the Long Parliament’s religious platform was An Ordinance for the Form of Church Government, passed in August 1648. This document dealt with three subject matters: firstly, the election of elders and the establishment of congregational elderships, with only London divided and their elders named. The rest of the country had yet to be divided. Secondly, the document described the different bodies within the Presbyterian Church structure: national and provincial synods, classes and congregational elderships and the various powers subscribed to each. Thirdly, the document outlines the rules, regulations and grounds for the suspension from the Lord’s Supper, excommunication from the church and absolution.64 Regarding the division of the rest of the nation, there was a significant caveat: That the Committees or Commissioners named in the ordinance of Sixty thousand 1. Per mensem Dated the 23 of June 1647 or any three or more of them of the several Counties of the Kingdom with the assistance of such Ministers and others as they shall think fit, do forthwith meet, and consider how their several Counties respectively may be most conveniently divided into distinct classical Presbyteries, where they are not already divided and what Ministers and others are fit to be of each Classis, and they shall accordingly make such division and nomination of Persons for each Classical Presbytery.65 The Act, dated 23 June 1647, was An Ordinance for the raising of Moneyes to be imployed towards the maintanence of Forces within the Kingdome. Essentially, the future of the English classical system lay in the hands of the county committees of parliament and was therefore dependent on local figures that could be outwardly hostile, lukewarm or well disposed to Presbyterian Church Government. The problem with this system was pointed out by Dr Edward Stanton, a member of the Westminster Assembly, who noted in August 1644 that a county committee had put a physician and a fell-monger into two livings.66 The map of the legislative basis of the classical system highlights the potential scope and divisions the Presbyterian Church structure was to be based on the county committee structure in England. Prior to 1648, the main operational areas were London and Lancashire. Both classical structures were supported by legislation and ideally were to be filled with dedicated elders and fully ordained ministers. Prior to 1648, the minutes of the Manchester Classis show that in reality, ordination was not a standard procedure, despite legislation from the English Parliament. The personal testimonies of Henry Newcome and Adam Martindale, young entrants to the ministry in the North, highlight that it was difficult to settle in a parish. The Manchester Classis had a difficult task but did manage to ordain ministers for parishes as far away as Yorkshire and Shropshire.

Introduction  21

Figure I.2  Presbyterian Church Structure and the County Committee System, c.1648

The establishment of the Manchester Classis in the 1640s was the result of misfortune. In 1645, Manchester was ravaged by the plague and incumbents in parishes died, opening up opportunities for Presbyterian ministers. Ministers of the classis, Herrick and Hollingsworth, actively recruited and built a network of enthusiastic young entrants, which included Adam

22 Introduction Martindale.67 Indeed, between 1646 and 1648, the classis had regular sessions where ordinations took place. All were ordained according to the procedures laid down by the English Parliament. Most entrants were in their mid-20s, but some were older, in their 30s, non-graduates due to the war and had difficulties settling in a parish. Most were degree educated, and one entrant came from Edinburgh, highlighting how the two systems of church government could be connected. All entrants were recommended by prominent members of the classis and approved before their congregation and, similar to Ireland, the grassroots were a significant feature of the English Presbytery.68 As the personal testimonies of Martindale and Newcome highlight, there could be various factors which could negatively affect ordination despite the presence of such an active network. Originally, Martindale was put forward for three congregations, all of which he rejected, including St Helen’s, which he did not accept due to his familiarity in the neighbourhood, fearing that some would regard him as inexperienced. Hyton was occupied by a famed minister, Mr Bell, and Martindale felt intimidated by his presence. Middleton, a small parish in Cheshire, already had a parson, an old man, and Martindale felt uncomfortable seizing his only source of income.69 Henry Newcome found it difficult to settle in parishes due to his inexperience, and he moved through three parishes before settling at Goosetree in Cheshire. However, during this time, he had developed his preaching skills.70 Legislative and practical barriers stood in the way of creating classes and the ordination of a qualified ministry in England. An important part of the Reformation was the reform of the universities, and this involved purging the ‘old order’ by establishing heads of institutions favourable to the Covenant which would prepare young men for the ministry. From the outset, the General Assembly and the Scottish Parliament regarded the universities as a key pillar of the Covenanting regime. As early as 1641, an Act concerning the universities states, ‘the good estate both of the Kirk and Commonwealth dependeth mainly upon the flourishing of Universities and Colledges’.71 This included adequate payment for staff and the removal of abuses, with the promotion of ‘piety and learning’; staff and students were to be subscribers to the Covenant. The universities were subject to visitations on a regular basis, inspected for their quality of learning, with reports sent back to the General Assembly suggesting recommendations for improvements. The Scottish Parliament confirmed appointments, resolved disputes between town and gown and extended the acts and powers of the visitations. Therefore, the governance of universities in Scotland was directed from Edinburgh backed by Scottish law and Scottish parliamentary procedure.72 However, the appointment of the principals was not a straight top-down affair but a compromise, selecting candidates with experience and standing within the local community. In August 1641, the Principal of the University of Aberdeen, Dr William Leslie, was deposed for not taking the Covenant and replaced by Dr William Guild, who had taken the National

Introduction  23 Covenant with equivocations. In addition, the Covenanters were sensitive to local contexts, as Guild was patron of the Aberdeen incorporated guilds, Greyfriars Kirk and founder of the Trinity Hospital.73 Again, the appointment of John Strang in Glasgow can be seen as a compromise, as Strang had been appointed Principal of Glasgow University by Charles I, the Scottish Parliament, the University and the City of Glasgow. Like Guild, he was a ‘popular’ choice, as he was well liked within the local community. Glasgow ministers Robert Ramsay, Robert Baillie and David Dickson came to his defence, and Strang had taken the National Covenant with equivocations.74 Likewise, the English Parliament aimed to better regulate and reform both Oxford and Cambridge universities, and swearing the Solemn League and Covenant was a key component of this process. In January 1644, the Earl of Manchester was ordered to appoint a committee to seek out scandalous ministers in the Eastern Association, and all masters, fellows and students of the colleges of the University of Cambridge had to be summoned for examination.75 A recent account on the Earl of Manchester’s visitations focuses on the number of ejected fellows often grappling with the clear bias of the Royalist Querela Cantabrigiensis,76 but it is helpful to highlight the ejectors and their relationship with the emerging covenanted interest at the time, particularly the London Classes and the Westminster Assembly and the central role of the Solemn League and Covenant. In March 1644, the Earl of Manchester was accompanied by Simeon Ashe and Mr Good, his personal chaplains, on his visit to Cambridge to put the ordinance into execution. On 11 March Manchester, as Chancellor, demanded that lists be drawn up of fellows and Masters in the colleges in preparation for examination. Simeon Ashe played a key role in the proceedings. Not only was Ashe the chaplain of Manchester, but he was a key ally of the Scots in their disputes with the Independents, and he became, as Ann Hughes states, ‘one of the most determined City Presbyterians’.77 Many appointed heads of colleges had strong links with the emerging covenanted interest. One notable case was Lazarus Seaman, who already had a reputation as a leading Presbyterian in the City of London. He was appointed by Manchester as Master of Peterhouse and later became a member of the London Provincial Assembly.78 Richard Vines was appointed Master of Pembroke Hall and was also a prominent member of the Westminster Assembly, staunchly defending Presbyterian ordination.79 Herbert Palmer, instrumental in drawing up the Assembly’s catechisms and supporting a Presbyterian Church settlement, was a well-respected member of the college.80 Catherine Hall’s William Spurstowe was again a prominent London minister placed firmly within the network of Presbyterians, as his associates included Edmund Calamy. Spurstowe also became a member of the London Provincial Assembly.81 John Arrowsmith, the new head of St John’s College, had firmly established his reputation within the Presbyterian nexus of London. He was a significant member of the Westminster Assembly who actively opposed liberty of conscience in the later 1640s. Thereafter, he

24 Introduction also had links to the London Provincial Assembly.82 The appointment of Thomas Young at Jesus College is of particular interest because, as a Scotsman, he did not graduate from Oxford or Cambridge, but was a Scottish Presbyterian firmly ensconced in the networks of Presbyterian London.83 As Twigg states, ‘refusal to take the Covenant was the principal cause of expulsion’. Indeed, entrants had to swear that they were ‘agreeable’ to the Solemn League and Covenant.84 The ordinance of 1 May 1647, directed at Oxford, stated that those who had not taken the Covenant could not hold any post within the university. In fact, the reform of Oxford was modelled on the Earl of Manchester’s reform of Cambridge a few years earlier.85 It is clear that the reform of Oxford was driven and devised by those more favourable to the aims stipulated in the Solemn League and Covenant. The English covenanted interest were at the centre of the reform when Francis Rous executed an order stating that no positions should be filled until Parliament had decided on a plan of action. This was followed up by an order in September 1646 naming those who would oversee the reform of Oxford, such as prominent figures well disposed to the English Classical system, including Edward Reynolds and Francis Cheynell. In 1647, Mr Button, an Oxford graduate and ‘rigid Presbyterian’, was asked to nominate those who would enquire into the behaviour of key staff at the university. Francis Cheyell, a passionate advocate of the English classical system of church government, was appointed to an honorary convention to resolve ambiguities and inconsistencies that prevented the enactment of legislation.86 Indeed, Cheynell saw himself as a central figure of Oxford’s reform, while the Royalists regarded him as an object of derision. In his self-penned Sworne Confederacy Between the Convocation at Oxford and the Tower of London, he sought to portray an Oxford full of Royalist conspiracy, with bands of ‘pretended’ officers engaging to establish Royalist networks undermining the Covenant. Scholars declared the visitors ‘traitors’ but, like Scotland, the covenanted interest sought to placate their opponents by compromise. They drew up just scruples for those who refused to take the negative oath and the Covenant, but compromise was nowhere to be found, and Royalists continued to resist any form of collusion.87 The debate over the Covenant had already been arrested because the Royalists had adequately refuted it over the previous four years, demonstrating strong resistance that was unlikely to change. Therefore, Royalist debates with visitors revolved around whether the actions of the English Parliament were indeed sanctioned by the Crown as the Acts passed by Parliament were never passed by the King and therefore void. Faced with an unswerving denial of Parliament’s authority, Presbyterian members of the visitation began to take desperate actions. Rous handed out a summons to the obstinate, and Cheynell made an effort to remove the Royalist-dominated Council of the University, but Parliament found this too uncomfortable and stopped Cheynell from pursing the matter. The actions of Presbyterians fed Independent propaganda,

Introduction  25 portraying Presbyterians as ‘intolerant’. The covenanted interest in Oxford was surrounded by stubborn Royalism on one hand and loud sectaries on the other. With the failure of the ‘covenanted interest’ to enact reform, the shift from assertion to defence had taken place, and this position continued until 1663.88

Acknowledgments Parts of this chapter were originally published as Kirsteen M. MacKenzie, “Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms” in Patrick Little eds., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (London, 2008) p. 142. Palgrave.

Notes 1 Kirsteen M MacKenzie, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms’ in Patrick Little ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (London, 2009) 142. 2 Elliot Vernon, ‘A Ministry of the Gospel: The Presbyterians during the English Revolution’ in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby eds., Religion in Revolutionary England (London, 2006) 115–136. Ann Hughes, Gangrena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004) 18–22; Tai Liu, Puritan London: A Study of Religion and Society in City Parishes (London, 1986). 3 Edward Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant (Woodbridge, 2005) 51–178. Adam Swann, ‘Is This the Region . . . That We Must Change for heav’n? Milton on the Margins’ in David Coleman eds., Region, Religion and the English Renaissance Literature (Farham, 2013); Denise Thomas, ‘The Pastoral Ministry of Thomas Hall (1610–1665) in the English Revolution’ Midland History (2013) 169–193; Ian Moonie, ‘Presbyterians and Independents or Congregationalists in Carlisle, 1648–1736’ Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society (2009) 30–111. The only exception is Ann Hughes, ‘The Renemerance of Sweet Fellowship’: Relationships Between English and Scottish Presbyterians in the 1640s and 1650s’ in Insular Christianity: Alternative Models of the Church in Britain and Ireland c.1570-c.1700 (Manchester University Press, 2013). It significantly drew on my PhD thesis for the relationship in the 1650s. 4 David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution 1638–1644: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 1977); David Stevenson, Revolution and CounterRevolution in Scotland 1644–1651 (Edinburgh, 1977); John R Young, ‘The Covenanters and the Scottish Parliament, 1639–1651: The Rule of the Godly and the ‘Second Scottish Reformation’ in Elizabethanne Boran and Crawford Gribben eds., Enforcing Reformation in Ireland and Scotland, 1550–1700 (Aldershot, 2006). 138–158; Allan Macinnes, The British Confederate: Archibald Campbell, Marquis of Argyll c.1607–1661 (Edinburgh, 2011); Scott Spurlock, Cromwell and Scotland: Conquest and Religion 1650–1660 (Edinburgh, 2007); Christopher R Langley, Worship, Civil War and Community (London, 2015); Laura M Stewart, Rethinking the Scottish Revolution: covenanted Scotland 1637–1651 (Oxford, 2015); Charles L Jackson, Riots, Revolutions and the Scottish Covenanters: The Work of Alexander Henderson (London, 2015); John Young, Debating the Covenanters and the British Civil Wars (Edinburgh, 2017); Alexander Campbell, The Life and Works of Robert Baillie 1602–1662: Politics,

26 Introduction Religion and Record Keeping (Woodbridge, 2017). Julian Goodacre, ‘The Rise of the Coevnanters 1637–1644’ in Michael Braddick eds., The Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution (Oxford, 2015) 43–59; Laura A.M. Stewart, ‘Scottish Politics 1644–1651’ in Micheal Braddick ed., Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution 114–138 ; Spurlock, Scott R, ‘State, Politics and Society in Scotland 1637–1660’ in Micheal Braddick, Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution 363–374; John Young, ‘The Committee of Estates of the Scottish Parliament, 1640–1651: An Exercise in Provisional Government, Podesa Ombra (2015) 153–176. 5 John Stuart Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland II (Belfast, 1867). Crawford Gribben, God’s Irishmen: Theological Debates in Cromwellian Ireland (Oxford, 2007) 55–127. Robert Armstrong, Protestant War: The ‘British’ of Ireland and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (Manchester, 2005) 95–118; Robert Armstrong, ‘Viscount Ards and the Presbytery: Politics and Religion Amongst the Scots of Ulster During the 1640s’ (Dublin, 2009) 18–40; Toby Barnard, A New Anatomy of Ireland: The Irish Protestants, 1649–1700 (London, 2003); Mark Sweetham ed., The Minutes of the Antrim Ministers’ Meeting 1654–8 (Dublin, 2012); Robert Armstrong, Andrew R Holmes and Scott Spurlock eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland: Two Seventeenth Century Narratives (Belfast, 2016). John Young, ‘Scotland and Ulster Connections in the Seventeeth Century: Sir Robert Adair of Kinhilt and the Scottish Parliament Under the Covenanters’ Journal of Scotch-Irish Studies 3 (4) 16–76. Robert Armstrong, ‘The Scots of Ireland and the English Republic 1649–1660’ in David Edwards and Simon Egan eds., The Scots in Early Stuart Ireland: Union and Separation in Two Kingdoms (Manchester, 2016). William S Brockington and Kirsty F McAlister and John R Young eds., Transactions of the Scots Armies in Ireland 1643–1648 (Dublin, forthcoming). 6 Jane Dawson ‘Anglo-Scottish Protestant Culture and Integration in Sixteenth Century Britain’ in Sarah Barber and Steven Elllis eds., Conquest and Union: Fashioning a British State 1485–1725 (London, 1995) 87–114; Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant 8. 7 Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant 1–48. 8 Arthur Williamson, Scottish National Consciousness in the Age of James VI (Edinburgh, 1979) ix-5. 9 Paul McGinnis and Arthur H Willamson, ‘Britain, Race and the Iberian World Empire’ in Allan Macinnes and Jane Ohlmeyer eds., The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century (Dublin, 2002) 70–93. 10 Williamson, Scottish National Consciousness 11–20, 62–65, 80–111, 140–141. 11 Samuel Rawson Gardiner ed. Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 1968) 124; Margaret Steele, ‘The ‘Politick Christian’: The Theological Background to the National Covenant’ in John Morrill ed., The National Covenant in Its British Context (Edinburgh, 1990) 38–39. 12 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 125–132; Steele, ‘The ‘Politick Christian’ 39–40. 13 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 132–134; Allan Macinnes, Charles I and the Covenanting Movement (Edinburgh, 1991) 173–177. 14 Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution 85–86; John Morrill, ‘The Covenant in Its British Context’ in John Morrill ed., The National Covenant in its British Context 14. 15 David George Mullan, Episcopacy in Scotland: The History of an Idea, 1560–1638 (Edinburgh, 1986) 1–2, 15–23, 108–109, 131–162. 16 Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967) 30–66, 105–112, 225–252, 291–302, 385–405, 432–462.

Introduction  27 17 Polly Ha, English Presbyterianism 1590–1640 (Stanford, 2011) 3–15, 21–49. 18 John Pentland Maffrey, An Epoch in Irish History: Trinity College Dublin, Its Foundations and Early Fortunes 1591–1660 (London, 1903) 59. 19 Thomas Hamilton, A History of the Irish Presbyterian Church (Edinburgh, 1886) 29–47; Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British 1580–1650 (Oxford, 2001) 192–199; 230–237. 20 Mark Fissel, The Bishops’ Wars: Charles Is campaigns against Scotland 1638– 1640 (Cambridge, 1994) 1–61, 289–299; John Young, The Scottish Parliament: 1639–1661: A Political and Constiutional Analysis (Edinburgh, 1997) 29–33. 21 Morrill, ‘The Covenant in Its British Context’ 15. 22 Peter Donald, An Uncounselled King: Charles I and the Scottish Troubles 1639– 1640 (Cambridge, 1990) 85–187. 23 A remonstrance concerning the present troubles from the meeting of the estates of the kingdome of Scotland, April 16. unto the Parliament of England (London, 1640) 1–38. 24 Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution 212–213. 25 Charles W.A Prior, ‘Cannons and Constitutions’ in Charles W.A Prior and Glen Burgess eds., England’s Wars of Religion Revisited (Farnham, 2011) 101–112. 26 Michael Braddick, God’s Fury and England’s Fire: A New History of the English Civil Wars (London, 2008) 120–143; Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant 51–53. 27 Michael Perceval-Maxwell, The Outbreak of the Irish Rebellion 1641 (New York, 1994) 25–57; Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British 1580–1650 (Oxford, 2001) 282–298. 28 Canny, Making Ireland British 479–483. 29 M O’Siochru, Confederate Ireland: A Constitutional and Political 1642–1649 (Dublin, 1999) 11–49; Brid McGrath, ‘Parliament Men and Confederate Association’ in M O’Siochru ed., Kingdoms in Crisis: Ireland in the 1640s (Dublin, 2001) 93–101. 30 Patrick Little ‘The English Parliament and the Irish Constitution 1641–9’ in M O’Siochru ed., Kingdoms in Crisis: Ireland in the 1640s (Dublin, 2001) 109–112. 31 Robert Armstong, ‘Ireland’s Puritan Revolution? The Emergence of Ulster Presbyterianism Reconsidered’ English Historical Review Volume cxxi, Number 493 (2006) 1048–1074; Edward M Furgol, ‘The Military and Ministers as Agents of Presbyterian Imperialism in England and Ireland, 1640–1660’ in John Dwyer et al eds., New Perspectives on Politics and Culture in Early Modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982) 95–114. 32 Braddick, God’s Fury 209–225. 33 Lotte Glow, ‘The Committee of Safety’ English Historical Review Volume 80, Number135 (1965) 289–312. 34 Ian Gentles, The English Revolution and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, 1638–1652 (London, 2007) 158–180. 35 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 267–268. 36 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 267–268. 37 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 267–268. 38 Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution 286. 39 David Laing ed., The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1841) II 102. 40 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 95–103; John Spalding, A History of the Troubles and Memorable Transactions in Scotland and England From 1624 to 1645 (Edinburgh, 1829) II 98–117; Gilbert Burnet, The memoirs and the lives and actions of James and William, dukes of Hamilton and Castle-Herald (Oxford, 1852) 320; A Solemne League and Covenant for the

28 Introduction Reformation and Defence of Religion, The Honour and Happinesse of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the Three kingdoms, of Scotland, England and Ireland (Edinburgh, 1643) 1–6. 41 Armstrong, Protestant War 115. 42 Historical Manuscripts Comission Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquis of Ormonde Preseved at Kilkenny Castle (London, 1902) 317; Thomas Carte, A Collection of Original Papers and Letters From the Year 1641 to 1660 (London, 1739) I 79, 182; Kevin McKenny, The Lagan Army in Ireland 1640–1685: The Landed Interests, Political Ideologies and Military Campaigns of the NorthWest Ulster Settlers (Dublin, 2005) 62. 43 A Declaration of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament (London, 1643) 1–3, 8; Commons Journal Volume 2 274–282, 290–293. 44 Carte, A Collection of Original Letters and Papers 78, 82–83. 45 William Killen ed., A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866) 102–106; McKenny, The Lagan Army in Ireland 62–69; Armstrong, Protestant Ireland; David Stevenson, Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates (Belfast, 1981). 149–151; 160–163. 46 Vallance, Revolutionary England 70–74, 119–129. 47 Philip Nye, An Exhortation to the Taking of the Solemne League and Covenant for Reformation and the Defence of Religion, the Honour and happinesse of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the three kingdomes of England, Ireland and Scotland (London, 1644). 2, 6–7; The Declaration of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland (London, 1643) 22–25; The Good News of England’s Approving the Covenant Sent From Scotland (London, 1643) 1–4. 48 David Stevenson, ‘Deposition of Ministers in the Church of Scotland under the Covenanters, 1638–1651’ Church History 44 (1975) 321–326. 49 General Assembly of Scotland, The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1682) 20, 89–90, 112. 50 General Assembly of Scotland, Acts of the General Assemblies 108. 51 John R Young, ‘The Covenanters and the Scottish Parliament, 1639–1651: The Rule of the Godly and the ‘Second Scottish Reformation’ in Elizabethanne Boran and Crawford Gribben eds., Enforcing the Reformation in Ireland and Scotland 1550–1700 (Aldershot, 2006) 131, 134–135, 140–14. 52 Thomas Thomson and Cosmo Innes eds., The Acts of the Parliaments A.D 1124–707 (Edinburgh, 1875) III 348, 350, 370, 470, 473, 478, 645; APS iv 322., 397. 53 Thomson and Innes eds., Acts of the Parliament of Scotland IV 199. 54 Furgol, ‘The Military and Ministers as Agents of Presbyterian Imperialism in England and Ireland’ 103–110; Robert Armstrong, ‘Ireland’s Puritan Revolution? The Emergence of Irish Presbyterianism Reconsidered’ English Historical Review CXXI (2006) 1048–1064. 55 Reid, Presbyterian Church Ireland 126–163; Armstrong, ‘Ireland’s Puritan Revolution?’ 1057–1061. General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Acts of the General Assembly 166–171; 178–181; 235–238. 56 General Assembly of Scotland, Acts of the General Assembly 167; Thomas Lowry ed. The Hamilton Manuscripts (Belfast, 1867) 38–39; Reid, Presbyterian Church Ireland 128, 157, 162; The Humble Petition of the Protestant Inhabitants of the Counties of Antrim, Downe, Tyrone &c part of the Province of Ulster (London, 1641) 1–12; The Humble Petition of the Scottish and many other Inhabitants of the Province of Ulster in the Kingdome of Ireland (London, 1642) 1–5. 57 Donald Meek ed., Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and Other Comissioners at Westminster February 1644 to January 1645

Introduction  29 (Edinburgh, 1846) 65–66; John Rogers Pitman ed., The Whole Works of Rev John Lightfoot Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge (London, 1822) 302, 312; Laing ed., Letters and Journals II 215, 220–223. 58 Robert S Paul, Assembly of Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly (London, 1997) 390–401; Meek ed., Notes on Debates 70–73; Pitman ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 303–304; Commons Journal Volume 3 590=591, 631–633. 59 Paul, Assembly of the Lord 406; MacKenzie, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant’ 149. 60 Pitman ed. The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 307; Laing ed., Letters and Journals 226–237. 61 Pitman ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 314. 62 Charles Harding Firth and Robert.S. Rait ed., Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (London, 1911) I 520–526, 567–569, 579, 582–609, 749–754. 63 Firth and Rait ed., Acts and Ordinances 1062–1063. 64 Firth and Rait ed., Acts and Ordinances 1188–1215; Firth and Rait ed., Acts and Ordinances II 81–104, 140–148, 152–156, 197–205, 237–238, 342–348, 355–357, 369–378, 383–389, 393–396, 409–412, 423–425, 429–442. 65 Firth and Rait ed., Acts and Ordinances I 1188. 66 Firth and Rait ed., Acts and Ordinances 958–984; Pitman ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 307. 67 Richard Parkinson ed., The Life of Adam Martindale, Written By Himself (Manchester, 1845) 54–57; William A Shaw ed., The Minutes of the Manchester Presbyterian Classis Volume 1 (Manchester, 1890) 2. 68 Shaw ed., Minuites of the Manchester Classis 33–35. 69 Parkinson, Life of Adam Martindale 58. 70 Parkinson ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852) 9–11. 71 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Acts of the General Assembly 112. 72 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Acts of the General Assembly 113, 178, 388–389. Thomson and Innes eds., Acts of the Parliament of Scotland III 353, 477–478, 586–587, 581–582, 577–578, 645–646; Thomson and Innes eds., Acts of the Parliament of Scotland IV 184, 196, 198–199, 535, 553. 73 John M Bulloch, A History of the University of Aberdeen (Aberdeen, 1895) 119–120; James Sherffifs, An Inquiry into the Life, Writings and Character of Dr William Guild (Aberdeen, 1799) 37–67; David Stevenson, King’s College: Aberdeen, 1560–1641: From Protestant Reformation to Covenanting Revolution (Aberdeen, 1990) 112–120. 74 James Coutts, A History of the University of Glasgow from its Foundation 1451–1909 (Glasgow, 1909) 90–103; Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie i 29, 66–67, 172, 305. 75 Firth and Rait ed., Acts and Ordinances I 371–372. 76 John Twigg, The University of Cambridge and the English Revolution, 1625– 1688 (Woodbridge, 1990) 91–102. 77 Charles Henry Cooper, Annals of Cambridge Volume III (Cambridge, 1845) 367–383 James Bass Mulliger, A History of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1888) 150–152; Ann Hughes ‘Ashe Simeon (d.1662) Church of England clergyman’ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; Twigg, University of Cambridge 94. 78 Tai Liu, ‘Seaman Lazarus (d.1675)’ clergyman and ejected minister’ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 79 William Lamont ‘Vines Richard, (1599/1600–1656) Church of England clergyman’ Oxford Ditionary of National Biography

30 Introduction 80 Jacqueline Eales, ‘Palmer Herbert (1601–1647) church of England clergyman and college head Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; Simon Patrick, Autobiography of Simon Patrick (London, 1839) 414–415. 81 Sharon Achinstein, ‘Spurstowe William (d.1666) clergyman and ejected minister’ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 82 John Twigg ‘Arrowsmith John (1602–1659), college head and theologian’ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 83 Arthur Gray and Fredrick Brittain, A History Jesus College Cambridge (Cambridge, 1988) 83. 84 Twigg, University of Cambridge and the English Revolution 96, 101; Thomas Fuller, The History of the University of Cambridge (London, 1811) 237; John Bastwick, Querela Cantabrigiensis (1647) 19, 21. 85 Anthony Wood, The History and Antiquaries of the University of Oxford Volume II (Oxford, 1752) 502, 546.Firth and Rait, ed., Acts and Ordinances i 925. 86 Montagu Burrows ed., The Register of the Visitors of the University of Oxford From AD 1647 to AD 1658 (London, 1881) 2–3. Wood, History and Antiquaries 489–490; Articles Concerning the Surrender of Oxford (Oxford, 1646) 9; Elizabethanne Boran, ‘Malignancy and the Reform of the University of Oxford in the Mid Seventeenth Century’ History of the Universities Volume XVII (2001–2002) 20–22; Ian Roy and Dietrich Reinhart, ‘Oxford and the Civil Wars’ in Nicholas Tyacke ed., The History of the University of Oxford: Seventeenth Century Oxford (Oxford, 1997) 721–724. 87 Francis Cheynell, The Sworne Confederacy Between the Convocation at Oxford, and the Tower of London (London, 1647) 1–6; Pegasus, or the Flying Horse From Oxford (Oxford, 1647) 1–12; Boran, ‘Malignancy and the Reform of the University of Oxford’ 20. 88 Wood, History and Antiquaries 507–508, 531–544, 581–600; Roy and Reinhart, ‘Oxford and the Civil Wars’ 723–725.

Bibliography Printed Primary Sources A Declaration of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament (London, 1643) A remonstrance concerning the present troubles from the meeting of the estates of the kingdome of Scotland, April 16. unto the Parliament of England (London, 1640). Articles Concerning the Surrender of Oxford (Oxford, 1646). A Solemne League and Covenant for the Reformation and Defence of Religion, The Honour and Happinesse of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the three kingdoms, of Scotland, England and Ireland (Edinburgh, 1643). Bastwick John, Querela Cantabrigiensis (1647). Brockington, William S, McAlister, Kirsty F and Young, John R eds., Transactions of the scots armies in Ireland 1643–1648 (Dublin, forthcoming). Burnet, Gilbert, The memoirs and the lives and actions of James and William, dukes of Hamilton and Castle-Herald (Oxford, 1852). Burrows Montagu ed. The Register of the Visitors of the University of Oxford from AD 1647 to AD 1658 (London, 1881). Carte Thomas, A Collection of Original Papers and Letters from the year 1641 to 1660 (London, 1739).

Introduction  31 Cheynell, Francis The Sworne Confederacy Between the Convocation at Oxford, and the Tower of London (London, 1647). Commons Journal Firth, Charles Harding and Rait Robert S eds., Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (London, 1911). General Assembly of Scotland, The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1682). Historical Manuscripts Comission, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquis of Ormonde Preseved at Kilkenny Castle (London, 1902). Killen, William ed., A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866). Laing, David ed., The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1841). Meek, Donald ed., Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and Other Commissioners at Westminster February 1644 to January 1645 (Edinburgh, 1846). Nye Philip, An Exhortation to the taking of the Solemne League and Covenant for Reformation and the Defence of Religion, the Honour and happinesse of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the three kingdomes of England, Ireland and Scotland (London, 1644). Parkinson, Richard ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852). Parkinson, Richard ed., The Life of Adam Martindale, Written By Himself (Manchester, 1845). Patrick, Simon, Autobiography of Simon Patrick (London, 1839). Pegasus, or the Flying Horse From Oxford (Oxford, 1647). Pitman, John Rogers ed., The Whole Works of Rev John Lightfoot Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge (London, 1822). Shaw, William A ed., The Minutes of the Manchester Presbyterian Classis (Manchester, 1890). Sherffifs, James, An Inquiry into the Life, Writings and Character of Dr William Guild (Aberdeen, 1799). Spalding John, A History of the troubles and memorable transactions in Scotland and England from 1624 to 1645 (Edinburgh, 1829). Sweetham, Mark, ed., The Minutes of the Antrim Ministers’ Meeting 1654–1658 (Dublin, 2012). The Declaration of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland (London, 1643). The Good News of England’s Approving the Covenant sent from Scotland (London, 1643). The Humble Petition of the Protestant Inhabitants of the Counties of Antrim, Downe, Tyrone &c part of the Province of Ulster (London, 1641). The Humble Petition of the Scottish and many other Inhabitants of the Province of Ulster in the Kingdome of Ireland (London, 1642). Thomson, Thomas and Innes, Cosmo eds., The Acts of the Parliaments A.D 1124– 707 (Edinburgh, 1875). Wood, Antony, The History and Antiquaries of the University of Oxford (Oxford, 1752).

32 Introduction Secondary Sources Armstrong, Robert, ‘Ireland’s Puritan Revolution? The Emergence of Ulster Presbyterianism Reconsidered’, English Historical Review Volume cxxi, Number 493 (2006) 1048–1074. Armstrong, Robert, Protestant War: The ‘British’ of Ireland and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (Manchester, 2005). Armstrong, Robert, ‘The Scots of Ireland and the English Republic 1649–1660’ in David Edwards and Simon Egan eds., The Scots in Early Stuart Ireland: Union and Separation in Two Kingdoms (Manchester, 2016). Armstrong, Robert, ‘Viscount Ards and the Presbytery: Politics and Religion Amongst the Scots of Ulster During the 1640s’ in Young John and Cathcart Alison eds., Scotland and Ulster: Explorations in Stuart Ireland (Dublin, 2009). Armstrong, Robert, Holmes, Andrew R and Spurlock, Scott eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland: Two Seventeenth Century Narratives (Belfast, 2016). Barnard, Toby, A New Anatomy of Ireland: The Irish Protestants, 1649–1700 (London, 2003). Boran, Elizabethanne ‘Malignancy and the Reform of the University of Oxford in the Mid Seventeenth Century’, History of the Universities Volume XVII (2001– 2002) 19–46. Braddick, Michael, God’s Fury and England’s Fire: A New History of the English Civil Wars (London, 2008). Bulloch, John M, A History of the University of Aberdeen (Aberdeen, 1895). Campbell, Alexander, The Life and Works of Robert Baillie 1602–1662: Politics, Religion and Record Keeping (Woodbridge, 2017). Canny, Nicholas, Making Ireland British 1580–1650 (Oxford, 2001). Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967). Cooper, Charles Henry, Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1845). Coutts, James, A History of the University of Glasgow From Its Foundation 1451– 1909 (Glasgow, 1909). Dawson, Jane, ‘Anglo-Scottish Protestant Culture and Integration in Sixteenth Century Britain’ in Sarah Barber and Steven Elllis eds., Conquest and Union: Fashioning a British State 1485–1725 (London, 1995). Donald, Peter, An Uncounselled King: Charles I and the Scottish Troubles 1639–1640 (Cambridge, 1990). Fissel, Mark, The Bishops’ Wars: Charles Is Campaigns Against Scotland 1638–1640 (Cambridge, 1994). Fuller, Thomas, The History of the University of Cambridge (London, 1811). Furgol, Edward M, ‘The Military and Ministers as Agents of Presbyterian Imperialism in England and Ireland, 1640–1660’ in John Dwyer et al eds., New Perspectives on Politics and Culture in Early Modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982). Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, ed., Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 1968). Gentles, Ian, The English Revolution and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, 1638– 1652 (London, 2007). Glow, Lotte, ‘The Committee of Safety’, English Historical Review Volume 80, Number 135 (1965) 289–312. Goodacre, Julian, ‘The Rise of the Coevnanters 1637–1644’ in Michael Braddick eds., The Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution (Oxford, 2015).

Introduction  33 Gray, Arthur and Brittain, Fredrick, A History Jesus College Cambridge (Cambridge, 1988). Gribben, Crawford, God’s Irishmen: Theological Debates in Cromwellian Ireland (Oxford, 2007). Ha, Polly, English Presbyterianism 1590–1640 (Stanford, 2011). Hamilton, Thomas, A History of the Irish Presbyterian Church (Edinburgh, 1886). Hughes, Ann, Gangrena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004). Hughes, Ann, ‘The Renemerance of Sweet Fellowship’: Relationships Between English and Scottish Presbyterians in the 1640s and 1650s’ in Insular Christianity: Alternative Models of the Church in Britain and Ireland c.1570-c.1700 (Manchester University Press, 2013). Jackson, Charles L, Riots, Revolutions and the Scottish Covenanters: The Work of Alexander Henderson (London, 2015). Langley, Christopher R, Worship, Civil War and Community (London, 2015). Little, Patrick, ‘The English Parliament and the Irish Constitution 1641–1649’ in O’Siochru M ed., Kingdoms in Crisis: Ireland in the 1640s (Dublin, 2001). Liu, Tai, Puritan London: A Study of Religion and Society in City Parishes (London, 1986). Lowry, Thomas ed., The Hamilton Manuscripts (Belfast, 1867). Macinnes, Allan, Charles I and the Covenanting Movement (Edinburgh, 1991). Macinnes, Allan, The British Confederate: Archibald Campbell, Marquis of Argyll c.1607–1661 (Edinburgh, 2011). MacKenzie, Kirsteen M, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms’ in Patrick Little ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (London, 2009). Maffrey, John P, An Epoch in Irish History: Trinity College Dublin, Its Foundations and Early Fortunes 1591–1660 (London, 1903). McGinnis, Paul and Willamson, Arthur H, ‘Britain, Race and the Iberian World Empire’ in Allan Macinnes and Jane Ohlmeyer eds., The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century (Dublin, 2002). McGrath, Brid, ‘Parliament Men and Confederate Association’ in O’Siochru Micheal ed., Kingdoms in Crisis: Ireland in the 1640s (Dublin, 2001). McKenny, Kevin, The Lagan Army in Ireland 1640–1685: The Landed Interests, Political Ideologies and Military Campaigns of the North-West Ulster Settlers (Dublin, 2005). Moonie, Ian, ‘Presbyterians and Independents or Congregationalists in Carlisle, 1648–1736’, Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society (2009) Volume 9, 30–111. Morrill, John, ‘The Covenant in Its British Context’ in John Morrill ed., The National Covenant in Its British Context (Edinburgh, 1990). Mullan, David George, Episcopacy in Scotland: The History of an Idea, 1560–1638 (Edinburgh, 1986). Mulliger, James Bass, A History of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1888). O’Siochru, Micheal, Confederate Ireland: A Constitutional and Political 1642–1649 (Dublin, 1999). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.www.oxforddnb.com. Paul, Robert S, Assembly of Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly (London, 1997).

34 Introduction Perceval-Maxwell, Michael, The Outbreak of the Irish Rebellion 1641 (New York, 1994). Prior, Charles W.A, ‘Cannons and Constitutions’, in Prior Charles W.A and Burgess Glen eds., England’s Wars of Religion Revisited (Farnham, 2011). Reid, John, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1867). Roy, Ian and Rienhart, Dietrich, ‘Oxford and the Civil Wars’ in Nicholas Tyacke ed., The History of the University of Oxford: Seventeenth Century Oxford (Oxford, 1997). Spurlock, Scott, Cromwell and Scotland: Conquest and Religion 1650–1660 (Edinburgh, 2007). Spurlock, Scott R, ‘State, Politics and Society in Scotland 1637–1660’ in Micheal Braddick ed., The Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution (Oxford, 2015). Steele, Margaret, ‘The ‘Politick Christian’: The Theological Background to the National Covenant’, in John Morrill ed., The National Covenant in Its British Context (Edinburgh, 1990). Stevenson, David, ‘Deposition of Ministers in the Church of Scotland Under the Covenanters, 1638–1651’, Church History Volume 44 (1975) 321–326. Stevenson, David, King’s College: Aberdeen, 1560–1641: From Protestant Reformation to Covenanting Revolution (Aberdeen, 1990). Stevenson, David, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland 1644–1651 (Edinburgh, 1977). Stevenson, David, Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates (Belfast, 1981). Stevenson, David, The Scottish Revolution 1638–1644: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 1977). Stewart, Laura A M, Rethinking the Scottish Revolution: Covenanted Scotland 1637–1651 (Oxford, 2015). Stewart, Laura A.M, ‘Scottish Politics 1644–1651’ in Micheal Braddick ed., Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution (Oxford, 2015). Swann, Adam, ‘Is This the Region . . . That We Must Change for heav’n? Milton on the Margins’ in David Coleman eds., Region, Religion and the English Renaissance Literature (Farham, 2013). Thomas, Denise, ‘The Pastoral Ministry of Thomas Hall (1610–1665) in the English Revolution, Midland History (2013) Volume 38, 169–193. Twigg, John, The University of Cambridge and the English Revolution, 1625–1688 (Woodbridge, 1990). Vallance, Edward, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant (Woodbridge, 2005). Vernon, Elliot, ‘A Ministry of the Gospel: The Presbyterians During the English Revolution’ in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby eds., Religion in Revolutionary England (London, 2006). Williamson, Arthur, Scottish National Consciousness in the Age of James VI (Edinburgh, 1979). Young, John, Debating the Covenanters and the British Civil Wars (Edinburgh, 2017). Young, John, ‘The Committee of Estates of the Scottish Parliament, 1640–1651: An Exercise in Provisional Government, Podesa Ombra (2015) Volume 36, 153–176. Young, John, ‘The Covenanters and the Scottish Parliament, 1639–51: The Rule of the Godly and the ‘Second Scottish Reformation’ in Elizabethanne Boran

Introduction  35 and Crawford Gribben eds., Enforcing Reformation in Ireland and Scotland, 1550–1700 (Aldershot, 2006). Young, John, ‘Scotland and Ulster Connections in the Seventeenth Century: Sir Robert Adair of Kinhilt and the Scottish Parliament Under the Covenanters’, Journal of Scotch-Irish Studies (2013) Volume 3, Number 4 16–76. Young, John, The Scottish Parliament: 1639–1661: A Political and Constitutional Analysis (Edinburgh, 1997).

1 The three kingdoms and the emergence of the anglocentric challenge, 1643–1648

From 1643 until the end of 1648, the Independents increased pressure on the covenanted interest within the three kingdoms. The more prominent elements of the covenanted alliance did disintegrate beyond repair, but the covenanted interest did not disappear with it. On the contrary, it consolidated itself in the face of pressures from the Independents. Faced with the growing influence of the Independents in the workings of the Westminster Assembly, members who favoured a Presbyterian settlement responded with the creation of an ‘Anglo-Scottish’ liturgy. This liturgy was to be sanctioned and discussed in, and between, the General Assembly, the Westminster Assembly and the House of Commons. Not only did those who favoured forms of Presbyterian Church government respond to challenges within the Assembly, they were also very active in responding to printed criticism in London. During this period, both English and Scottish Presbyterians responded to the sectaries through the printing presses in a semi-coordinated effort. Indeed, the Solemn League and Covenant encouraged all subscribers to act upon ‘what we are not able to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed’.1 Nor did Presbyterian Church government falter completely, despite the lack of support from Parliament and local committees. In fact, Presbyterian congregations continued to emerge in London and Ulster. The pursuit of covenanted uniformity aimed to compensate for the withering cooperation within the Anglo-Scottish relationship and the emergence of a fully anglocentic approach to the relationship between the Three Stuart Kingdoms. The priorities of an Independent minority at Westminster became paramount characterised by the emergence of a private interest at the expense of the public interest.

The reconfiguration of federative union: propaganda, providence and the politics of disorder The Westminster Assembly’s primary purpose was to advise the English Parliament on the form of national church to be established in England. However, Robert S Paul has observed ‘the Scottish commissioners involving themselves in every phase’. It is clear that the Westminster Assembly was

Three kingdoms  37 an integral part of the ‘covenanting revolution’ and the Independents ‘were a minority fighting a rearguard action . . . to postpone the establishment of full Presbyterian uniformity’. The religious legislation and liturgy which emerged was forged in response to the Independents and their attempts to circumvent established procedures in the Assembly as they launched an attack from the outside assisted by the printing presses.2 The procedures and the parameters for debate were established from the outset, in particular: (7) ‘No man be denied to enter his dissent from the Assembly, and his reasons for it, in any point, after it first hath been debated in the Assembly, and thence (if the dissenting party require it) to be sent to the Houses of Parliament by the Assembly, not by any particular man or men in a private way, when either House shall require. (8) All things agreed on and prepared for the Parliament, to be openly read and allowed in the Assembly, and then offered as the judgement of the Assembly, if the major part assent. Provided that the opinion of any persons dissenting and the reasons urged for it, be annexed thereunto, if the dissenters require it, together with the solutions, if any were given to the Assembly, to these reasons’.3 In effect, dissent even from a majority vote within the Assembly was dealt with in an orderly manner. Issues were to be discussed within the Assembly, and appeals were to be made to the Houses of Parliament. Private means of resolving dissent were forbidden, and all disputes had to be resolved by the appropriate channels. Any outside influence was to come by means of a petition to both Houses of Parliament, which was then passed onto the Assembly.4 Discussions were facilitated openly in the Assembly but also through a number of organised committees which would be devoted to exploring particular topics or issues. Votes would take place when it was felt an issue had been resolved or a majority in the Assembly had agreed on a point. It was an organised means of discussion, and it is in this context that the activities of the Scots, their English allies and Independents within the Assembly should be viewed. Much has been made by historians of the Scots ‘forcing’ their austere brand of religion upon their English brethren.5 However, it is clear that Scottish commissioners were aware their role was limited to advising only and that the construction of the Church rested with English members of the Assembly. Indeed, the Westminster Assembly did invite the Scottish commissioners to become full members of the Assembly, an invitation which the Scots declined, thereby recognising and respecting England’s right to define its own church government. Thus, English members of the Assembly had to make ‘special motions’ to allow them to consult with the Scottish commissioners on a regular basis. The Scots fully encouraged the English to set up a Classical Presbytery based on English tradition and encouraged

38  Three kingdoms compromise. In response to Philp Nye’s sharp accusation that the Scots had ‘given’ the Assembly a whole system of church government, the Scottish members responded that ‘we were well content the Assembly should take their own order, and not tie themselves to ours’.6 Following established procedure, the Scottish commissioners advised through a committee, the main forum for discussion, but final votes were cast by English members of the Assembly. It was through the committee system, speeches and open discussions that the Scottish commissioners sought to persuade their English brethren. The focus of the Scottish commissioners was clearly the art of persuasion rather than force, and this was clearly demonstrated in their attempts to set up a ‘committee of accommodation’ to discuss differences with Independents in the Assembly and by the Scottish commissioners continuing adherence to standard procedure despite finding it tedious.7 In November 1643, it was suspected that the Independents were attempting extraordinary tactics to influence the Assembly. Edmund Calamy had received a note in his own church, breaching the confidentiality of the Assembly, which stated, ‘some have complained that they could not have freedom of speech in the Assembly’. This coincided with the creation of a committee for the Scots commissioners to enable them to lay out their ‘desires’ openly before the Assembly. In January 1644, the Independents were outnumbered by Parliament and the Assembly on the issue of ordination, and they became aggressive and impertinent. They openly resisted any attempt to form a committee to discuss the viability of the Presbytery and tried to verbally dominate the discussion despite being in the minority. The Scottish commissioners contributed to the discussion by giving all members of the Westminster Assembly a book which discussed church government in Scotland up front, and this was received with grateful thanks by the majority of members. It is important to remember that although this was a published work, it was distributed amongst members of the Assembly during the discussion and was thereby influencing debates from within.8 Seeing votes in the Assembly turn against them, and with the Scottish Army crossing the border into England, the Independents published a tract called An Apologeticall Narration. This was a tract published and distributed outwith the Assembly and was seen by members of the Assembly as a clear attempt to influence the Assembly and Parliament from the outside, bypassing the established committee structure. The Independents were courting public opinion to bear down on the Assembly, hoping to overturn a majority vote. According to Baillie, the majority in the Assembly resented the interference. This is brought into sharper focus when we consider that the French churches in London had to apply to the Houses before publishing anything in relation to the Assembly. One of the main features of the Apologeticall Narration was its eschewing of Anglo-Scottish cooperation on matters of church government, stating, ‘We had no State-ends or Political interests to comply with; No kingdoms in our eye to subdue unto our mold’.

Three kingdoms  39 Within the context of the Solemn League and Covenant and the reciprocal pledges to maintain Anglo-Scottish relations, this attack was seen by Scots and their English allies as an unwarranted, rude and a very public attempt to humiliate them.9 Independents continued to try and overturn majority opinion by bypassing the internal committee structures and procedures by approaching the City for backing and bringing outside pressure on Parliament and the Assembly. From this perspective, the Independents were a minority trying to subvert the proceedings of the Assembly and to overturn the wishes of the majority and hampering ‘covenanted uniformity’ with what, as one member described, ‘inconsistent arguments’. The Independent attack on the ‘covenanted interest’ had begun.10 The Solemn League and Covenant also heralded a joint Anglo-Scottish military effort across the kingdoms which resulted in a Scottish army crossing the English border in January 1644 and the erection of military committees known by name of ‘the Committee of Both Kingdoms’. Historians have made much of the tensions within the Anglo-Scottish war effort played out in this Committee and have highlighted the negative aspects of the war effort, especially the Scots military misdemeanours whilst confronted with the success of the New Model Army.11 However, just as significant were the divisions over the interpretation of providence and the use of the printing press. Firstly, it has to be recognised that the Scots were indeed an integral element within the Committee of Both Kingdoms. This should come as no surprise because the Committee of Both Kingdoms was modelled on the committees which Pym had set up in 1642, which had drawn inspiration from the Covenanters military committees. As long as there was a Scottish army on English soil, the Committee was to compose of 21 Englishmen and four Scots.12 John Adamson has argued that Scottish votes were rarely seen in the Committee, and, by default, the Scottish contribution was marginal.13 However, the Scots were not marginal members, neither by their activities nor in view of praise received from colleagues. Arguably, the accusation that the Scots were marginal figures came from outside the Committee, usually from opponents. The Scots did have a central role in the Committee. As a critic complained in 1646, the Scots had a negative voice in proceedings, and therefore, voting could only go ahead if a number of Scots were present on the Committee. This is confirmed by the minutes of the Committee dated 15 April 1644 which stated that there was only one Scottish commissioner present and no vote was passed.14 From the outset, the Scots presence on the committee was highly important, as representatives from both nations shared responsibility for the prosecution of the war. Archibald Johnston of Wariston was promoted as an officer for the Oath of Secrecy alongside the English Parliament’s Lord Solicitor governing military intelligence. A book of the Committee’s proceedings was to be kept for both nations. It was clear that the Scots had derived their powers on the Committee due to a Scottish army

40  Three kingdoms being present on English soil, but they gave a declaration of loyalty to the English Parliament. Work in the Committee had to be carried out by joint councils, and military intelligence had to be shared between the two nations, and orders of supply for the armies could only be sanctioned by signatures of representatives from both nations.15 Propositions regarding the Scots army in Ireland were only discussed if Scots were present on the Committee, and the Scots were active in distributing passes and warrants.16 After the victory at Marston Moor on 2 July 1644, Anglo-Scottish cooperation continued, with many of the infamous disputes taking place outside the committee room. Statements about Marston Moor were issued from joint committees. Sir John Meldrum, a Scottish commander in the English Parliamentary forces, was openly praised for his efforts in the surrender of the strategically important Montgomery Castle, both within the Committee and in the printing presses, where it was declared that he ‘deserves a large share in the honour of this daies successe’.17 Wariston continued in his role relaying intelligence to the Committee of Both Kingdoms in the buildup to the second battle of Newbury in October 1644. Scots present at the battle, such as Sir William Balfour, received notable praise from the Committee for securing victory. In November 1644, Meldrum was again praised by the Committee for reducing the City of Liverpool. It is at this time that information begins to circulate around the Committee about the negative behaviour of the Scottish armies in Newcastle. The Anglo-Scottish Committee responded by referring to the rules governing quarter, reinforcing previous commands made by the Scots themselves. During 1645, Anglo-Scottish cooperation continued, and, in March, Major General David Leslie, of the covenanting forces in England, was dispatched to help alleviate Fairfax at Pontefract. Leslie was praised by the Committee as ‘a solider of great experience [who] will be of special assistance to you in advice and councell’. In May 1645, it was noted that his commander Alexander Leslie, Earl of Leven, played a pivotal role in preventing Royalist armies from moving into Lancashire. It is clear that despite the issues surrounding the ill discipline of Crawford’s troops in Newcastle, the Scottish army was highly praised by the English dominated committee. The father of Sir Thomas Fairfax, Fernando Lord Fairfax, described the New Model Army as a ‘small force which are not a little disheartened by your distance from them’ and advocated a speedy union to prevent the growing strength of the enemy. The Scottish army had to remain in the north to prevent Royalists from crossing the border.18 However, this picture of mutual praise within the Committee is deceptive because the Scottish covenanted interest in England was increasingly caught up in a propaganda war. Two providential interpretations of the Anglo-Scottish War effort had emerged. The first interpretation recognised the achievements of the Scots during the Anglo-Scottish War effort and saw each victory as a providential event, as God’s blessing on an equal union between Scotland and England, one where both countries were working together to advance the religious and political ends of the Solemn League

Three kingdoms  41 and Covenant. The alternative interpretation put forward by Englishmen, and a more anglocentic interpretation, stated that success was a sign of God’s blessing on the English Parliament and the English people, partly assisted by the Scots, but not in an equal partnership or union. God’s instrument which brought these blessings was Oliver Cromwell and later the New Model Army. The two providential interpretations emerged after the victory at Marston Moor on 2 July 1644. As Barry Coward has commented, ‘Cromwell believed that he and his cavalry had won the battle and that his allies Fairfax, Leven and the Scots, had played a relatively at best supporting part in the victory’. In a pamphlet commissioned by Cromwell and his allies, it was declared that it was God’s victory and the instrument of that victory was Cromwell himself. Yet, a letter from the covenanting forces gives an alternative account of Cromwell’s role that day and ascribes the victory to God but also due to Cromwell working alongside David Leslie. This letter suggests that the victory at Marston Moor was a joint effort between the English Parliament and the Scottish forces working together under the Solemn League and Covenant. Another Covenanter hoped that the victory ‘ought never to be forgot in the three kingdoms as one of the greatest acts of God’s great power’. For such commentators, Cromwell was still a valuable ally whose actions were deemed providential, since his shared part in the victory assured the Covenanters that the Solemn League and Covenant was blessed by God. The perception of a joint victory was not just the preserve of the Scots; as Allan Macinnes states, after the battle Manchester, Fairfax with Leven wrote to the Committee of Both Kingdoms stating their adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant.19 Scottish Covenanting providential interpretation during the years of Anglo-Scottish military cooperation is laid out in David Buchannan’s A Short and True Relation published in September 1645. This pamphlet was intended to publicise this Scottish interpretation to a wider English audience for ‘the benefit of church and state’.20 There is often reference to the ‘common cause’ referring to the ties between the covenanted in all three kingdoms and the inseparable twin pillars of church and state that sink and swim together for the public good and warn against actions for private ends. These arguments and accusations were to reappear during the 1650s.21 Buchanan states that God’s great work began in Scotland and made progress during the Bishops’ Wars. The Scots invasion ‘gave occasion and liberty to divers Nobles of England . . . to desire, of the King, a Parliament for the good of the Kingdom . . . the King does not refuse their command, by reason of the Scots’. Thus, the providential destinies of both countries are inextricably linked. The Scottish army had done good work in Ireland successfully winning against the ‘rebels’. ‘Ireland . . . became pretty well cleared’. Indeed, the Scottish army had been diligent in its work despite the lack of supplies from the English Parliament.22 The Scottish army came unopposed across the border where, in a joint effort, the Fairfaxes, Manchester and the

42  Three kingdoms Scottish forces worked together as a united force to expel the enemy. It was the ‘Sectaries, [under Manchester’s command] which although it did not rise to a breach, yet it did come to a distaste and dislike’. David Buchanan was in no doubt where the problems had emerged within the Anglo-Scottish relationship, disrupting the workings of providence.23 Buchanan saw Marston Moor as a joint Anglo-Scottish victory, but ‘the Sectaries, to indear themselves to the people, attribute to themselves the honour of the day’, inferring that the praise of Cromwell ‘that they extol so much’ was a cheap propaganda stunt to build popular support. When rumours began to circulate that the Scots had plundered the northern counties, Buchanan saw the attacks as ‘cloak and dagger’ and a ‘private interest with men’. This was confirmed by the creation of the New Model Army which was ‘moulded, according to the mind of some few men’, allowing factionalism and private interests to destroy the common cause between the kingdoms.24 In 1646, a reply was published entitled Manifest Truth which sought to vindicate the Parliament and the Kingdom of England ‘from the false and injurious aspirations cast on them by the author of the said Manifest’. The author of this pamphlet was Edward Bowles, chaplain to the Fairfax family, and more significantly, as he openly states, a member of the English covenanted interest, giving an insight into the different opinions within the covenanted interest. It also highlights that patronage and loyalty to England, its constitution, army and laws were equally as important for the English covenanted interest as Scotland’s constitution, laws and military success were to the Scottish Covenanters, but these differences led to two very different interpretations of the Anglo-Scottish war effort. For Bowles, the Covenant was a union for the preservation of both countries ‘from the illegal intrenchments of their own king’ and ‘this Union doth not neccessairly inferred a confusion or mixture; but it may as well, and it may be better stand, with a full reservation to each of their peculiar Lawes, Privileges, Governments and possessions’. Indeed, as Bowles infers, the Scots had been overbearing in English affairs, that pressure should not be used to bring the three kingdoms into union but naturally within their own time.25 In his Narrative, Bowles scales down the success of the Scottish army in the north of England. Whilst commenting on Marston Moor, Bowles cleverly side steps any arguments over the role of Cromwell and Leslie, stating, ‘I should be loath to meddle in it’.26 He acknowledges the providential role of the Scots army keeping the enemy at bay in the north but declares that its actions were part of a wider effort. He declares, ‘I have not heard any thing of service from that [Scots] army’ whilst praising the ‘valiant and victorious’ Sir Thomas Fairfax at Naseby. The Scots had lost the propaganda war in England, despite their key victory at Philiphaugh in September 1645, which halted a Scottish Royalist invasion into England.27 It is clear that even amongst the Scots English allies there was a more anglocentric interpretation which was fast becoming the accepted narrative of events. Faced with the emerging anglocentric threat in the Committee of Both Kingdoms and the Westminster Assembly, the rise of the ‘private’ interest at the expense

Three kingdoms  43 of the public interest was becoming rapidly apparent. In response, the covenanted interest focused on the creation of an Anglo-Scottish liturgy, the use of the printing press as a means of defence and the continuation of building a church settlement across the three kingdoms.

The creation of Anglo-Scottish liturgy: a response to liberty of conscience The Westminster Assembly is renowned for its work amongst contemporaries and historians. Between 1644 and 1648, it produced a liturgy which, initially, had the aim of replacing the old Episcopal liturgy. It consisted of the Directory of Worship, which was intended to replace the Book of Common Prayer, a Confession of Faith, a catechism and, finally, a book of Psalms, which was a welcome addition to the other books.28 Indeed, from the outset, these were created through the means of Anglo-Scottish cooperation, or a written dialogue between the General Assembly and English and Scottish members of the Westminster Assembly. Unfortunately, Robert Baillie’s fears that the English Parliament would modify and overrule their hard work to accommodate liberty of conscience became justified.29 Therefore, the creation of an Anglo-Scottish liturgy was only a partial success. However, for those adhering to the Covenant in England, it became a source of order and authority, as England’s political and religious establishments melted into anarchy and chaos during the 1650s. In 1660, English and Scottish Presbyterians approached Charles II with a view to establishing these works as the official liturgy of the three kingdoms. This liturgy is the foremost and lasting expression of ‘covenanted uniformity’ from the Assembly. Although these works were established to replace the Episcopal order, very soon after, their purpose was to stem the growth of sectaries in England. Indeed, towards the end of the Assembly, it is noticeable that in response to the advance of the Independents, both the London Presbyterians and the Scottish commissioners sped up the compilation, drafting and printing of these works.30 In essence, the Anglo-Scottish liturgy was created in response to the Independents moves for liberty of conscience. Of course, the origins of the Anglo-Scottish liturgy can be found in 1641, prior to the Solemn League and Covenant, as English minsters and the General Assembly in Scotland began to converse about religious reformation in the hope that Episcopacy would be abolished. In fact, they referred to the reformation as a joint effort between both countries. Even at this early stage, the English ministers were open about problems, with Independents who condemned classes as ‘usurpation’ over congregations, hoping that some ‘famous and eminent brethren’ could advise them. In response, the Kirk emphasised the mutual fellowship between ministers in both countries as dictated by providence and united under God and monarch.31 Throughout 1643, a group of London ministers kept in close correspondence with the General Assembly of Scotland, pledging a commitment to ‘covenanted uniformity’ to assist the peace and welfare of both kingdoms and agreeing to one Confession of

44  Three kingdoms Faith, one Directory of Worship and public catechism for both kingdoms. The Kirk passed an act for the preparation of the Directory of Worship as early as 15 August 1643 against ‘schisme and division’. It gave the 1644 General Assembly the power to design and revise the Directory of Worship.32 Indeed, discussions over the Directory of Worship were hastened due to the growth of the sectaries throughout England. There was a concern that differences were getting in the way of the business because, as George Gillespie, a prominent Scottish member of the Westminster Assembly stated, the Independents were openly against church government modelled on the Scottish form. In October 1644, Gillespie suspected that Henry Vane and Lord Saye were trying to pressure the committee into accepting liberty of conscience by drawing up an agreement within the committee, bypassing the Assembly and getting the Houses of Parliament to sanction it. The Independents were using extraordinary measures to exercise their authority. This attempt by Vane to control proceedings took place the same day the Commons requested to send the Directory to them with all possible speed. In response to Vane’s pressure, the English and Scottish covenanted interest joined forces and declared against sending the agreement to the House of Commons, insisting that the agreement should go through the Assembly first. Vane became violent in his protests.33 In response to the aggression of the Independents over the next few months, the Directory was written and drafted section by section by English and Scottish members well disposed towards Presbyterian Church Government. It was seen as a liturgy for both the Kirk and the reformed English church. In November 1644, the General Assembly of Scotland sent a letter enquiring about proceedings in the Assembly. In response, the Independents started sending in ‘dissenting reasons’ and argued vehemently against Presbyterian Church government. Again, the covenanted decided to hasten the production of the Directory. On 20 November, as members of the Assembly were ready to send the Directory to the Commons, the Independents distracted proceedings by wilfully declaring against ‘covenanted uniformity’ and instigated debates so that it was not referred to until the next day. Again, undeterred, English members of the Assembly handed the section on the Psalms to Scottish commissioners to comment upon at the end of December. Assembly members also willingly gave Alexander Henderson, an another prominent Scottish member of the Assembly, the responsibility for drawing up the section on excommunication. Furthermore, the Directory for Fasting was hastened to avoid any delays and conflict with the Independents. Independents again opened a debate on Church government, and Lazarus Seaman moved a motion to discuss the Directory for burial that successfully passed both houses the next day.34 In the first week of December 1644, one of the Scottish Commissioners in England, John Campbell, Earl of Loudoun, visited the Assembly and again urged the Assembly to carry on its liturgical work, and the Scottish commissioners wrote a positive report for the General Assembly. A committee was

Three kingdoms  45 drawn up to start discussing the catechism. After the effort with the Directory, Baillie was positive about the speedy passage of the catechism due to ‘a few choice hands’ having agreed to a draft of the catechism in private in an effort to avoid the now inevitable disruption to proceedings. As the English ministers and Scottish commissioners were working on the catechism, the sects continued to grow, but the commissioners continued in their efforts. In April 1645, work on the Confession was split amongst several committees to avoid debates. These tactics much troubled the Independents and put them on the back foot, but this was quickly reversed when Cromwell used the victory at Naseby to press for liberty of conscience.35 After Naseby, the creation of the Anglo-Scottish liturgy continued, and three days after the New Model Army’s victory on the battlefield, Francis Rous’s Psalms were drafted and sent to a committee in Edinburgh for comments and revision. Clearly, it was still very much an Anglo-Scottish process. Baillie was positive and believed that these psalms would be used in England. However, after the military victory at Naseby, the covenanted interest in both countries could not rest on their laurels. In July 1645, Robert Baillie wrote anxiously to Lauderdale to see if he had received the Psalms, as Rous had been prodding Baillie for a response. Despite the removal of two prominent Independents from their London parishes, Baillie commented, ‘we expect a very great assault’.36 In August 1645, the Independents withdrew from the Assembly, and English members who were well disposed towards Presbyterian Church government accepted Scottish advice to continue to set up Presbyteries and synods, despite the lack of support from the Houses of Parliament. By December 1645, the Psalms had been sent to John Row in Aberdeen for comments, and the General Assembly recommended revisions. In addition, the drafting of the Confession was delayed due to days of thanksgivings and debates over church government. In response to the Independents trying to dominate London’s Common Council, causing alarm amongst the ‘covenanted interest’, the writing and drafting of the Confession of Faith was expedited. Indeed, Baillie commented that without a system of church government, the catechism would be of little use. By August 1646, the Confession of Faith was almost complete. The Anglo-Scottish liturgy had been created within the Assembly and became a symbol for orderly church government. However, the liturgy did not stop the growth of sectaries, and other tactics were clearly required.37

The paper defences: the printing press, sectaries and the covenanted interest of the three kingdoms 1646–1647 The Scottish Presbyterians resident in London at the time publicly admonished and tackled the sectaries in a series of pamphlets, most notably Robert Baillie. His Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time was clearly published to counteract the influence of the sectaries. For Baillie, the situation was

46  Three kingdoms extremely serious, as ‘heresies and schisms’ continued to multiply at a great rate as ‘that was ever heard in any one place of former age’. Throughout the pamphlet, Baillie compared the Independent beliefs and practices with those of Congregationalists in New England and the Netherlands and with the Brownists. He concluded that the Independents were far more radical than all three groups. The Independents’ drive for self-governing congregations had significant consequences for the religious settlement, society and state. Baillie was critical of attempts by the Independents to undermine the Westminster Assembly through the disrupting of debates and stalling of the completion of the Directory, as it had a major impact on the hopes of a religious settlement in both kingdoms. With a belief of their own infallibility, even above the Bible and disregarding an orderly system of courts, the Independents had little respect for any authority in general. Under these circumstances, the interests of private persons and factions predominate. The ‘exclusivity’ of the Independent congregations is frightening because they were voluntary associations bound by no one but themselves, a congregation unchecked by other churches and the civil magistrate which could easily corrupt itself and fall into evil ways, separating itself from the rules of law and order which underpin society. This, as Baillie pointed out, ‘cannot be very favourable to the State, which, at one stroke, annihilates all Acts of Parliament’. Baillie had no idea of how prophetic his words were going to be.38 In contrast to the direct attacks on the sectaries by Scottish members, London Presbyterians took a positive approach, arguing for the existence of a well-ordered, structured and inclusive national church as outlined in Jus Divinium Regiminis Ecclesiastci, or the Divine Right of Church Government. This weighty book argued that toleration was but human decree and not divinely sanctioned. No one can claim exemption from divinely appointed church government, as it applies to everyone. Therefore, from this perspective, separate, self-governing congregations look elitist. A national church must have an orderly and fully accountable structure; otherwise, confusion and chaos will reign. Indeed, the London Presbyterians made a comparison alluding to Greek classifications of civil government. Presbytery is an Aristocratic government whereby people appointed the ministers and officers to positions of authority, yet the congregation is subordinate to the judgements of the ministers and officers. Furthermore, each congregation can appeal to and is governed by a series of courts: the Presbytery, Synodical and National Assembly. This was contrasted with the ‘democratic’ nature of Independent congregations whereby all of the people within the congregation have an equal voice or have higher courts for appeals: democracy equals chaos.39 The London Presbyterians argued that there was biblical sanction for Presbyterian Church government, especially the ordaining of Presbyters by the laying on of hands, quoting Timothy Chapters 1 and 2 and biblical evidence endorsing church courts, presbyteries, synods and national assemblies.40

Three kingdoms  47 Church government was not ‘communal’ nor invested in the communality of the people. Independent congregations were contradictory, as they excluded the majority of people from worship, and as groups of the ‘godly’, they have no intention of making worship available to all. Liberty of conscience is only for the Independents but denied to everyone else. The communality does not have the power to administer sacraments nor ordinances but only the ability to nominate their own minister. Alluding to the work of the Westminster Assembly, the London Presbyterians argued that several activities were indicative of good church government: public fasting and thanksgiving, singing of Psalms and a publicly acknowledged and formally appointed, educated, ordained ministry.41 Indeed, the Jus Divinium did reference Baillie’s Dissuasive, as there is a clear distrust of the Independents’ claim to prophesying without any visible limitations, such as the Bible, and the whole body of the people cannot have ecclesiastical jurisdiction. English Presbyterians who had been invited to give sermons at both Houses of Parliament and the City of London endeavoured to get their sermons published so that they could be read by a wider audience. Many of these sermons encouraged members to adhere to the Covenant and continue reformation. Authors used many different kinds of language and multiple contexts to get their message across. Two examples will be analysed: Deliverance Obstruction; Or, The Set-backs of Reformation by Thomas Case, Religious Covenanting Directed and Covenant-keeping persuaded by Simeon Ashe. Thomas Case’s original sermon was preached before the English House of Lords on March 26 1646 as part of a monthly fast. It was a plea to members of the House to continue church reformation, despite the many obstacles in their way, and it highlights the disappointment over the slow pace of reform. The sermon was embedded in Exodus with the Israelites being led out of captivity in Egypt, faced with struggles to erect order and good church government. Exodus highlighted that the road to deliverance was littered with obstructions, but God had promised Moses and the Israelites deliverance.42 He identified the enemies of deliverance, the subjects of deliverance, the instruments of deliverance and the author of deliverance, whilst explaining each term in turn. For Case, the enemies of deliverance were those within the Houses of Parliament who had been too friendly towards the King as a result of unqualified pride and a wilful disregard for reformation and deliverance. He was also critical of the covenanted interest, whom he criticised for forgetting God’s mercies towards them and for focusing on continual disputes over ‘human policy’, personal interests, jealousies and withdrawal of prayer. Parliament had approached the Reformation ‘at the wrong end’, alluding to the patchy and disorganised nature of legislation surrounding the Classical system in England. Despite the obstacles, Case firmly believed the author of deliverance, God, would bring reformation.43 Simeon Ashe's Religious Covenanting Directed was another published sermon dedicated to the Mayor and the officers of the City of London in praise of their renewal of the Covenant. The pamphlet

48  Three kingdoms encouraged people to uphold the brotherly union between the English and the Scots. To slide from the Covenant risked God’s wrath, so he extolled the City to remember God’s goodness and was critical of the City allowing sects to grow.44 Another way in which the ‘covenanted interest’ used the printing press for its defence was the publication of public debates between themselves and Independents to influence public opinion. One such case was the publication of a dispute between William Erbury and Francis Cheynell which took place in Oxford in 1646. On that occasion, the Presbyterians were the first to use the press to argue against the heretical opinions of Erbury. The pamphlet Truth Triumphing stated the Presbyterians had won a victory in Oxford against ‘heresy and error’ and assumed that there was already widespread support for the Presbyterian position amongst the wider public against ‘socinians’. Indeed, the pamphlet advertises ‘Master Cheynels clear confutation of them’ as a member of the Westminster Assembly with the sectaries disrupting a reformation sanctioned by the English Parliament. One major weakness of the pamphlet was the lack of a detailed rebuttal, only that ‘the contrary truths’ were maintained against him, and that before a great audience’.45 The pamphlet was awash with biblical references to back up Erbury’s argument, thus coming across as more authoritative. This pamphlet had done the Presbyterians a disservice.46

England and Ulster: the perseverance of the Presbytery Presbyterian hopes may have felt the pressure from the Independents through the printing press, but they continued to gather support and erect a church structure which had been outlined in parliamentary legislation. It is easy to look at the initial legislation and, with hindsight, declare that Presbyterian Church government was a failure, but there is a need to appreciate that advocates were swimming against the tide as both Independents and Royalists sought to dismantle Presbyterian plans. Presbyterian achievements should be put into this wider context, and these adverse circumstances were instrumental to the shaping of Presbyterian Church government. The Fourth London Classis was set up, not just to conform to parliamentary legislation, but to provide a bulwark against the emerging threats posed by liberty of conscience. The ministers of the classis were keen to set up a Triers system to execute parliamentary ordinances to promote knowledge and godliness. Indeed, by 1647, the Covenant became an essential prerequisite for prospective ministers. There was a book kept of Covenant subscribers, and they were required to produce a certificate to prove that they had taken the Covenant. Discipline was present in the grassroots, as the parishioners of Crooked Lane brought complaints against their minister. Ministers had to provide evidence that they had satisfied their congregation. It is important to recognise that the Fourth Classis also ordained candidates for other parts of England as far afield as Dorset and Lincolnshire. As

Three kingdoms  49 we have already discussed, the Manchester Classis ordained ministers for Shropshire, and Yorkshire accepted Scottish candidates for the ministry.47 Although it could be argued that this shows the weakness of the Presbyterian structure, it also demonstrates a deep commitment to promoting and establishing a Presbyterian Church structure in other parts of the country. Clearly, the classes were not confined to fixed territorial boundaries but could act as evangelical organisations throwing out ‘spores’ or ‘seeds’ of Presbyterianism to take root in other parts of the country.

Figure 1.1  Manchester and London Fourth Classis Ordinations, 1647–1653

50  Three kingdoms In addition to the Fourth London Classis, its superior body, the London Provincial Assembly, was formed in 1646 and supported the classis structure. The Provincial Assembly was a body which could act as a focal point for Presbyterians across London and beyond. Not only did it support the ordination of ministers, but it lobbied the public and Parliament about the advantages of Presbyterian Church government. It became a focal point for grassroots petitioning whereby petitions on the implementation of parliamentary legislation were filtered via the classes. Michael Mahony and Valerie Pearl have shown that petitions from the London Provincial Assembly were part of a wider petitioning campaign by English Presbyterians and their Scottish allies in London. Although the petition campaign is widely considered a failure, it highlights that the English and Scottish covenanted interest continued to work together to pursue Presbyterian aspirations. In August 1646, there were two major Presbyterian petitions, the City Remonstrance and a petition from Presbyterians in Lancashire, which, according to Baille, were enormous successes, with the subscription of over 12,500 hands. Mahony has stated we must be wary of regarding this statement as an indicator of popular desire for Presbyterianism, but it was a good reflection of successful Presbyterian organisation. During 1646, as liberty of conscience was gaining pace, and faced with the failure of their petitions and a barrage of counter attacks from the Independents through the printing press, we know that clandestine meetings between ministers and politicians took place in order to agree ordinances and various public declarations. Indeed, Baillie declared, ‘I make it part of my task to give them weekly my best advice’ and saw that his efforts were worth his stay in London. It was deemed necessary, as Baillie was fully aware, Shire Committees would not be quick to follow legislation. Baillie realised that the pursuit of Presbyterian Church government through a combination of committees and petitioning was vital in restoring access to parliamentary proceedings which had become distorted and manipulated by the Independents for their own private ends.48 The continuing dominance of Independents in parliamentary affairs, especially regarding the receiving and consideration of petitions to the Commons, forced the covenanted interest to seek an alternative route for their dissent, frustration and access to enable a fair hearing in both houses of Parliament. Thus, Presbyterianism in England had to become a fully grassroots-inspired movement which contrasted with liberty of conscience, pursued by a minority and endorsed by the sword. Keith Lindley, in his study into popular politics and civil war in London, has noted the centrality and importance of petitions to London Presbyterianism. From September 1645 to May 1646, the Commons failed to enact or develop legislation relating to Presbyterian Church government, and in response, the London Presbyterians and their Scottish allies petitioned the common council of the City of London to intervene. Historians have accused the Scots and the City of disrespecting

Three kingdoms  51 parliamentary privilege. However, it could be argued that the covenanted interest began using the City when the Independents had restricted access to both Houses. Lindley has shown that any petitions handed into the Commons by the covenanted interest between September 1645 and August 1646 had received a cool response at best or, at worst, rejected. In the spring of 1646, the Commons received a petition from the City requesting religious settlement and orderly government. This was seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege because the Scots and their Presbyterian allies were using an outside body to influence Parliament. However, with the Independent minority in ascendancy, dominating committees and blocking their right to petition the Commons, the covenanted interest had to find an alternative way to influence parliament. In May 1646, the Commons reacted to the City’s Remonstrance by sending MPs into the City to investigate the authors of the Remonstrance. The City responded with genuine concern that the Commons would attack the City’s traditional governance and privileges. The petition movement was a reasonable and measured response towards the Independents growing dominance, and the Commons reacted by dismissing any appeals and launched attacks on traditional local government. The Commons was now more receptive to petitions, focusing on the rights of freeborn Englishmen rather on the joint Anglo-Scottish effort. Committed Presbyterians responded by continuing to enact Presbyterian legislation at the grassroots level and maintaining Anglo-Scottish contacts.49 It is therefore interesting to view the creation of the London Provincial Assembly in this context. It is no coincidence that in June 1646, the House of Commons gave London Presbyterians the power to convene a London Provincial Assembly, which met in January 1647. This was not an act of benevolence by Parliament, nor an attempt to bolster Presbyterianism in London, but a diversionary tactic to alleviate pressure on the City and to prevent an open rupture with the Scots as they were making plans to withdraw from the North of England. The Commons knew full well that a Provincial Assembly could not bolster nor support ministers’ incomes in the parishes. The founding of the London Provincial Assembly was a continuation of the grassroots movement which sought to counteract Parliament’s tardiness in setting up Presbyterian Church government and the rejection of their petitions. In their own words, ‘for the clearing of out Integrities, and preserving our Consciences void of offence both towards God and men’ bound by the Solemn League and Covenant.50 Petitioning in the North of England and the ‘spores’ scattered by the Manchester Classis were beginning to bear fruit, and Presbyterian organisation was furthered with the founding of the Bury Classis in Lancashire. Indeed, there was a strong link between the petition of 12,500 hands and the founding of the Bury Classis in 1647. This pamphlet was published nine months before the first meeting of the Bury Classis in February 1647. From the outset, a close-knit group of ministers and elders within the local

52  Three kingdoms area began to emerge. Many of the ministers would have been ordained at the Manchester Classis or have close connections. Therefore, the emergence of the Bury Classis was a combination of a grassroots network with support from existing structures. Within the classis petitions were a means to legitimise complaints by parishioners against incumbents. The Presbyterian system allowed congregations to take their complaints to the Presbytery, but, within the wider context of national events, it could also be seen as a way of legitimising their actions in the face of the tardiness of Westminster to settle church government.51 The Manchester Classis also continued to encourage ordinations in the West Midlands, and this led to the emergence of the Shropshire classis in 1647. As Barbara Coulton has outlined, a tight-knit group of ministers sought ordination by the Manchester Classis and erected six classical divisions for Shropshire. Not only did key members such as Thomas Porter, Thomas Paget and John Malden receive support from the Manchester Classis, but they also received support from Shropshire’s governing elite and local committees. Robert Clive of Styche Hall chose Henry Vaughn a minister and leading member of the classis. Sir John Corbet of Adderley, MP for the shire, presented Thomas Cook, another key member of the classis, showing that parliamentary local committees could dictate the success or failure of the Presbyterian Church settlement of England.52 Across the water in Ulster, the Church continued to grow and expand. In particular, the year 1646 is noted as significant amongst contemporaries and historians. It was a messy affair where difficult obstacles remained, with many temporary ministerial appointments and new parishes dependent on the presence of the Scottish army. One of the major restricting factors was the growing awareness amongst the English commissioners of a strong and independently minded Scottish presence in the region. A complicated set of circumstances arose because the English commissioners were faced with the awkwardness of confronting a Presbytery that followed Scottish religious practise, drawing upon Scottish legal forms within a colony where English law predominated. The English commissioners, clearly alarmed, asserted Parliamentary Erastian procedures towards the Presbytery and sought to subordinate the Presbytery to the magistrate. Under these circumstances, leading Anglican prelates in Ulster, such as Dr Colville, saw this as an opportunity to curtail the power of the Presbytery in the region and reassert their own authority. Keen to bring leading Anglicans over to their side, the English commissioners, aware of the large funds at the prelates’ disposal, requested that the Presbytery should leave him alone. To placate Dr Colville and the Presbytery, the English Commissioners offered Dr Colville the opportunity to take the Covenant privately. The Presbytery, sensing insincerity on Colville’s part and the slackness of the English commissioners, reacted with fury to the suggestion, stating that the Covenant should be taken publicly. Regardless, the English commissioners continued to see Presbyterians as useful agents to pursue ‘scandalous ministers’.53

Three kingdoms  53 The strains and tensions within the Anglo-Scottish alliance had spilled over into Ulster by 1646. Unlike England, where divisions were clearly appearing along Independent and Presbyterian lines, the situation in Ulster was more complicated. Sir John Clotworthy, a committed English Presbyterian and covenanted member of the Ulster elite, continued to work regularly for the English Parliament’s Irish committee. Clotworthy, with his Independent colleagues, willingly received complaints about the Scottish army’s actions in Ulster and actively looked to bolster the British presence in Ulster. It is clear that there was a receding joint war effort. The English commissioners in Belfast had been ordered to act ‘alone’ and raise forces until the Scots joined them, effectively giving the commissioners permission to do as they wished independently of the Anglo-Scottish agreement. It is clear that these troops were to reduce the influence of the Scottish army in Ulster, since the Scots were ‘a great burden to the country’. The active recruitment of soldiers from the north of England into Ulster, with the order that the Scots have no access to provisions without Parliament’s consent, only increased the tensions further. However, the English Parliament also required Scottish assistance for the transportation of supplies, and this led to Scots in Ulster being ‘tolerated’.54 The defeat of the Protestant Scottish and British forces at Benburb temporarily reasserted Anglo-Scottish cooperation in the face of the Catholic threat in Ireland. The Presbyterians declared a day of humiliation and were given permission by the English Commissioners to tender the Covenant. However, by September 1646, a major dispute emerged surrounding the rendition of Belfast where the Scots maintained a silence in the face of English Parliamentary demands. The Scottish General Assembly continued its rotation of ministers, with Archibald Campbell, the 1st Marquis of Argyll and leading lay Covenanter, making a brief visit to the English Commissioners in Belfast to confer about the state of affairs in Ireland and to arrange for three regiments to come to Scotland to help deal with the Royalists in Argyll. Another member of the delegation was John Kennedy, Lord Provost of Ayr. Notably, many of the ministers that had entered from Scotland to Ulster in 1646 were, in fact, from Ayrshire. The Presbytery of Antrim had received many requests for the ministry in Ulster, but the Presbytery was very careful to accept any requests and filtered the ministers for dedication and quality. This mirrors the commitment shown by the Manchester and Bury Classes in Lancashire. Like Presbyterians in England and Scotland, many ministers in Ulster were recommended through a network of private contracts. In Ulster, these networks were forged between the landed elite, laity and ministry and also by close private links between the churches and landed elite in Ayrshire and the rest of Scotland. Presbyterians in Ulster continued to apply to the General Assembly, requesting that parishes vacated after the 1641 rebellion should be refilled with ministers, especially those familiar with Ulster. This can be seen as an attempt to plant ministers who would return quickly, settle and stay. An appeal to the Scottish General Assembly in June 1646 to

54  Three kingdoms establish ministers in Newtonards, Carrickfergus, Killylegh and Islandmagee failed, despite obtaining the permission of their Scottish congregations to transport them. This was on the basis that the General Assembly believed that Ulster had enough ministers. However, it is more likely that, in the light of deteriorating Anglo-Scottish relations, the General Assembly did not want to antagonise the English Commissioners in Belfast. In order to placate the General Assembly, but also as a statement of English parliamentary supremacy in Ireland, the English Commissioners issued the Directory of Worship to be used by Presbyterians in Ulster. This, of course, chimed with the original ambitions of an Anglo-Scottish liturgy as laid out and approved by both Parliaments, yet it was an attempt by the commissioners to try and entice the Presbyterians into the English Erastianism. This failed because the Scottish Presbyterians in Ulster rejected the relaxed standards of the English Parliament towards admission to the Lord’s Supper.55 Despite the lacklustre attitude of the General Assembly to plant ministers, Ulster Presbyterians now depended on the networks of key landowners, particularly in County Down, where efforts for Killyleagh were supported by Lord Clandeboy and in Newtonards by Lord Montgomery. Thus, like the classes in England, the success of Presbyterianism was dependent on the support and goodwill of the landed elite in the face of resistance by central institutions. Again, the close links with Ayrshire were significant, with ministers coming from Dalry and Troon. High-profile networks inside and outside of Ulster were central in the appointment of Thomas Kennedy, who was the elder brother of an already settled minster, Gilbert Kennedy of Dundonald, both being nephews of the Earl of Casslis, an assessor for the Westminster Assembly. The Scots army in Ulster continued to supply ministers to the region. Many were part of a garrison and the surrounding areas, and thus, the ministry in the area would be an extension of the ministry for the troops. This had an advantage, as the English commissioners were less likely to challenge their presence. However, upon the army’s withdrawal, ministers could easily be removed. Notable parishes would include Carrickfergus and Islandmagee. The army had its own internal familial networks which provided support for ministers. For example, the head of the garrison at Carrickfergus, Campbell of Auchinbrek, was a kinsman of Argyll, and his nephew was Colonel George Monro. Despite a flurry of petitions for Ulster, the Scottish General Assembly again refused to settle ministers permanently and continued a rotational system, but Presbyterians continued to try and settle some ministers on a more permanent basis. In August 1646, Patrick Adair was settled in Cairncastle at the behest of the local family in the area, the Stewarts, and he stayed in Ulster for decades. Thomas Hall was planted in Larne and Robert Cunningham in Broadisland. However, Anthony Shaw was only planted in Belfast for a short time and was squeezed out by the prelates and the English commissioners, who clearly wanted to reduce the Scottish influence in the region. New ordinations were carried out by a small, tight-knit group which included

Three kingdoms  55 Archibald Ferguson, the correspondent who travelled from Ulster to Scotland with recently arrived ministers such as Adair and Cunningham. There were complaints about two ministers, Ker and O’Quinn, who were called, but their deposition met resistance from influential figures in their local areas. Anthony Kennedy only survived due to the support of the people in his parish, unlike Greg, who had to leave due to stoppage of funds from the General Assembly. The congregation stepped in on Kennedy’s behalf. Without institutional support, Presbyterianism returned to its grassroots for survival, and the Presbyterians had planted ministers in Antrim, Down, Derry and Tyrone and further extended into Donegal. By the end of 1646, the English Parliament was openly dismissive of the Scottish interest in Ulster, stating that Scots affairs were not the responsibility of the English Parliament. Regardless of the setbacks in the Anglo-Scottish relationship, the Presbyterian Church structure continued to develop in both England and Ireland.56 Faced with increasing pressures, the covenanted interest in both England and Scotland managed to forge an Anglo-Scottish liturgy despite and in response to the use of extraordinary parliamentary methods by the Independents. Although the Anglo-Scottish liturgy did not halt the growth of sectaries, the liturgy became a symbol for orderly church government. Both Scottish and English Presbyterians actively used the press to defend church government, orderly society and government. The Scottish Presbyterians took a more direct approach, attacking the dangers to law, religion and governance. The English Presbyterians were less direct, focusing on the need for orderly church government and citing too much freedom and autonomy. Presbyterians in England and Ulster persevered with the erection of church government. In both cases, it was a grassroots movement but with standards, checks and balances for prospective ministers. Many of these petitions emerged from clandestine meetings and contributed to the establishment of classes in London and its Provincial Assembly, which became a focal point for the covenanted interest in England. These actions were also a response to the increasing restriction of access to parliamentary redress due to domination by the Independents. The London Provincial Assembly was born out of compromise by the English Parliament, and the Bury and Shropshire Classes had more organic beginnings. Bury was an offshoot of the Manchester Classis through a combination of grassroots support and a tight-knit network of ministers. The Shropshire Classis consisted of ordinations from Manchester with strong county committee support. The establishment of Ulster Presbyterianism was far more haphazard, with resistance from the General Assembly of Scotland and the crisis in Anglo-Scottish relations which saw them increasingly reliant on private networks to establish ministers. Despite the level of success at the grassroots, the lack of support from political and religious institutional structures meant the covenanted were required to look elsewhere for assistance in order to establish their goals and looked towards the monarch.

56  Three kingdoms

Notes 1 Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Purtian Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 1968) 270. 2 Robert S Paul, The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the ‘Grand Debate’ (Edinburgh, 1985) 2–3, 9, 31; Chad Van Dixhoorn ed., The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly 1643–1652 (Oxford, 2012) I 1–83. 3 John Rogers Pitman ed., The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot D.D. Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge I (London, 1824) 13, 4; Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume I 89–91. 4 Pitman ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 7–9; Chad Van Dixhoorn ‘Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the Grand Debate’ in Robert Armstrong and Tadhg O’ hAnnrachain eds., Insular Christianities (Manchester, 2013) 131. 5 Paul, Assembly of the Lord 222; Michael Braddick, God’s Fury: A New History of the English Civil Wars (London, 2009) 311–312. 6 Donald Meek ed., Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and Other Commissioners at Westminster (Edinburgh, 1846) 9; Pitman ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 20, 56, 60, 67, 75. 7 David Laing ed. Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXX.VII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1842) II 110; Pitman ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 14, 27. 8 Pitman ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 50–51, 116, 119–122, 130. 9 Pitman ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 130, 169; 207; Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 118–130; Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrich Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughes, William Bridge, An Apologeticall Narration, humbly submitted to both Houses of Parliament (London, 1643) 3–5; For an alternative account see Hunter Powell, The Crisis of British Protestantism (Manchester, 2015) 91–121. 10 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 145; Pitman ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 156, 244. 11 Laura M Stewart, ‘English Funding of the Scottish Armies in England and Ireland, 1640–1648’ The Historical Journal Volume 52 Issue 3 (September, 2009) 586. 12 John Adamson, ‘The Triumph of Oligarchy: the management of the war and the Committee of Both Kingdoms 1644–1645’ in Chris R Kyle and Jason Peacey eds, Parliament at Work: Parliamentary Committees, Political Power and Public Access in Early Modern England 101–105, 110. 13 Adamson, ‘The Trimuph of Oligarchy’ 113. 14 Edward Bowles, Manifest Truth or an Inversion of Truths Manifest containing a narration of the proceedings of the Scottish Army and a Vindication of the Parliament and Kingdome of England from the false and injurious aspersions cast on them by the author of the said Manifest (1646) 42. 15 William Douglas Hamilton ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644 (London, 1888) 17–22. 16 Hamilton, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644 35–36, 61, 74–75, 95–99. 17 Hamilton, Calendar of State Papers 1644 322, 331, 537; William Hamilton ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644–1645 (London, 1890) 5–28;Sir William Bereton, Letters from Sir William Brereton, Sir Thomas Middleton, Sir John Meldrum, Of the great Victory (by God’s providence) given them, in raising the siege from before Mountgomery-castle. 3 18 Hamilton ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644–1645 38, 60–66, 73–79, 93, 118, 287, 339, 344–351, 402, 409, 481–502, 517, 555.

Three kingdoms  57 19 Kirsteen M MacKenzie, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms’ in Patrick Little ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (London, 2008) 147–148. 20 David Buchanan A Short and True Relation of Some main passages of things (wherein the Scots are particularly concerned) from the very first beginning of these unhappy troubles to this day (London, 1645) *3, *5 21 Buchannan, A Short and True Relation 1–14. 22 Buchannan, A Short and True Relation 14–18, 22. 23 Buchannan, A Short and True Relation 34. 24 Buchannan, A Short and True Relation 32–36, 54, 57, 64–65, 67. 74–75. 25 Bowles, Manifest Truth or an Inversion of Truths Manifest A2–7. 26 Bowles, Manifest Truth 1–7. 27 Bowles, Manifest Truth 8–13. 28 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume I 34; Paul, Assembly of the Lord 518–519. 29 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 291. 30 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume I 28. 31 Church of Scotland, The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 (Edinburgh, 1682) 118–124. 32 Church of Scotland, The Acts of the General Assemblies 158–160, 188–189, 192–196, 216–219, 248; Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume 3 222, 229, 250. 33 George Gillespie, Notes on the Debates and Proceedings in the Assembly of Divines and Other Comissioners at Westminster, Feb 1644 to Jan 1645 (Edinburgh, 1846) 107; Paul, Assembly of the Lord 488; Pitcairn ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 321; Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 225, 232, 236–237. 34 Pitcairn ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 323, 332, 334, 342–344; Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 242; Church of Scotland, Acts of the General Assembly 248–251; Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume 3 239. 35 Pitcairn ed., The Whole Works of John Lightfoot 338; Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 242, 247–248, 250, 266, 280; Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume 5 160–164; Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume 3 479. 36 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 280, 293–300; Church of Scotland, Acts of the General Assembly 250, 317; Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume 5 259; Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of Westminster Assembly Volume 3 351, 629. 37 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 306–307, 315, 325, 328–329, 332, 344,349, 379, 390; Church of Scotland, Acts of the General Assembly 351–352, 377–378; Paul, Assembly of the Lord 487–493, 503–505, 516; Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume 1 36; Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly Volume 4 30, 74, 288–289. 38 Robert Baillie, A Dissvasive From the Errours of the Time (London,1646) 2–8, 22–25, 60–65, 90–123. 39 Ministers of the City of London, Jus Divinium Regiminis Ecclesiastci : The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646) 1–8. 40 Ministers of the City of London, Jus Divinium 21, 179–182, 188–240. 41 Ministers of the City of London, Jus Divinium 57–61, 90–112. 42 Thomas Case, Deliverance-Obstruction; Or The Set-backs of Reformation. Discovered in a sermon before the Right Honourable The House of Peers, in Parliament Now assembled. (London, 1646) 1–8.

58  Three kingdoms 43 Case, Deliverance-Obstruction 8–27. 44 Simeon Ashe, Religious Covenanting Directed, and Covenant-keeping persuaded (London, 1646) 1–10. 45 Truth Triumphing over Errour and Heresie. Or A Relation of a Publicke Disputation at Oxford in S.Marie’s Church, on Munday last Jan 11. 1646 between Master Cheynell a Member of the Assembly, and Master Erbury the Seeker and Socinian (London, 1646) 1–7. 46 The Relation of a Publike Discourse in Marie’s Church at Oxford between Mr Cheynel and Mr Erbery (London, 1647) 1–22. 47 Charles E Surman ed., The Register-Booke of the Fourth Classis in the Province of London 1646–59 (London, 1953) 7, 12 17–20, 32, 38. 48 Surman, Fourth London Classis 8, 17; Philip J Anderson, ‘Sion College and the London Provincial Assembly, 1647–1660’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History Volume 37 Number 1 (1986) 68–74, 80; Michael Mahony, ‘Presbyterianism in the City of London 1645–1647’, The Historical Journal Volume 22, number 1 (1979) 93–103; Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 333–334, 343–346, 359, 377, 393–396; John Tilsley, A True Copie of the Petition of Twelve thousand and five hundred and upwards of the well affected Gentlemen, Ministers and Free-holders and others of the County Palatine of Lancaster. (London, 1646) 1–4.. 49 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 377–378; Keith Lindley, Popular Politics in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997) 356–370; Bulstrode Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs from the beginning of the reign of Charles the first to the happy restoration of King Charles the Second Volume II (Oxford, 1853) 6–31; Commons Journal 7–16 April 1646 511–112. 50 Tai Liu, ‘The Founding of the London Provincial Assembly, 1645–47’, Guildhall Studies of London History Volume III, Number 2, (April, 1978) 109–134; Certain Considerations and Cautions Agreed upon by the Ministers of London, Westminster, and within the Lines of Communication (London, 1646) 1–5. 51 William A Shaw ed., The Minutes of the Bury Classis 1647–1660 Volume 36 Part I (Manchester, 1896) 1–7; Tilsley, A true Copie of the Petition 1–21. 52 Barbara Coulton, ‘The Fourth Shropshire Classis, 1647–62’ Shropshire History and Archaeology Volume 73 (1998) 33–35. 53 John Stuart Reid, A History of Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1837) II 101–115; William Killen ed., A True Narrative of the Rise of Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866) 128–131; Robert Armstrong, Andrew R Holmes and Scott Spurlock eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland: Two Seventeenth Century Narratives (Belfast, 2016) 124–168; William T Latimer, A History of Irish Presbyterians (Belfast, 1902) 58; Edward Furgol, ‘Military and Ministers as agents of Presbyterian Imperialism in England and Ireland 1640– 1648’ in John Dwyer, Roger Mason and Alexander Murdoch eds., New Perspectives on the Politics of Early Modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982)’110; Robert Pentland Mahaffy ed., Calendar of State Papers Ireland 1633–1646 (London, 1900) 461. 54 Robert Young ed. Historical Notices of Old Belfast and its Vicinity (London, 1896) 65–66; Mahaffy ed., Calendar of State Papers Ireland 1633–1646 428–446. 55 Reid, Presbyterians in Ireland 115–119; Killen ed., A True Narrative 129–134; Armstong, Holmes and Spurlock eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland 124–168; Latimer, A History of Irish Presbyterians 58; David Stevenson, Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates (Belfast, 1982) 232; Mahaffy ed., Calendar State Papers Ireland 1633–1646 488–496, 505–559; Allan Macinnes, The British Confederate: Archibald Campbell, Marquis of Argyll c. 1607–1661 (Edinburgh,

Three kingdoms  59 2011) 193; Robert Armstrong, Protestant War: The British of Ireland and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (Manchester, 2005) 172–173. 56 Reid, Presbyterians in Ireland 120–129; Killen ed., A True Narrative 130–137; Armstong, Holmes and Spurlock eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland 124–168; Raymond Gillespie, ‘An Army Sent from God: Scots at War in Ireland 1642–9’ in Norman MacDougall ed., Scotland and War AD 79–1918 (Edinburgh, 1991). 121–122; Stevenson, Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates 230; Mahffey ed., Calendar of State Papers Ireland 1633–1646 561.

Bibliography Printed Primary Sources Armstrong Robert, Holmes Andrew R and Spurlock Scott eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland: Two Seventeenth Century Narratives (Belfast, 2016). Ashe Simeon, Religious Covenanting Directed, and Covenant-keeping persuaded (London, 1646). A true Copie of the Petition (London, 1644). Baillie Robert, A Dissvasive From the Errours of the Time (London,1646). Bereton Sir William, Letters from Sir William Brereton, Sir Thomas Middleton, Sir John Meldrum, Of the great Victory (by God’s providence) given them, in raising the siege from before Mountgomery-castle. (London, 1644). Bowles Edward, Manifest Truth or an Inversion of Truths Manifest containing a narration of the proceedings of the Scottish Army and a Vindication of the Parliament and Kingdome of England from the false and injurious aspersions cast on them by the author of the said Manifest (1646). Buchanan David, A Short and True Relation of Some main passages of things (wherein the Scots are particularly concerned) from the very first beginning of these unhappy troubles to this day (London, 1645). Case Thomas, Deliverance-Obstruction; Or The Set-backs of Reformation. Discovered in a sermon before the Right Honourable The House of Peers, in Parliament Now assembled. (London, 1646). Certain Considerations and Cautions Agreed upon by the Ministers of London, Westminster, and within the Lines of Communication (London, 1646). Church of Scotland, The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland from the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 (Edinburgh, 1682). Commons Journal Hamilton, William Douglas ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644 (London, 1888). Hamilton, William Douglas ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644–1645 (London, 1890). Gardiner, Rawson Samuel, Constitutional Documents of the Purtian Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 1968). Gillespie, George, Notes on the Debates and Proceedings in the Assembly of Divines and Other Comissioners at Westminster, Feb 1644 to Jan 1645 (Edinburgh, 1846).

60  Three kingdoms Goodwin Thomas, Nye Philip, Simpson Sidrich, Burroughes Jeremiah, Bridge William, An Apologeticall Narration, humbly submitted to both Houses of Parliament (London, 1643). Killen, William ed., A True Narrative of the Rise of Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866). Laing, David ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXX.VII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1842). Mahaffy, Robert Pentland ed., Calendar of State Papers Ireland 1633–1646 (London, 1900). Meek, Donald ed., Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and Other Commissioners at Westminster (Edinburgh, 1846). Ministers of the City of London, Jus Divinium Regiminis Ecclesiastci: The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646). Pitman, John Rogers ed., The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot D.D. Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge (London, 1824). Shaw, William A ed., Minutes of the Bury Classis 1647–1660 Volume 36 Part I (Manchester, 1896). Surman Charles E ed. The Register-Booke of the Fourth Classis in the Province of London 1646–59 (London, 1953). The Relation of a Publike Discourse in Marie’s Church at Oxford between Mr Cheynel and Mr Erbery (London, 1647). Tilsley John, A True Copie of the Petition of Twelve thousand and five hundred and upwards of the well affected Gentlemen, Ministers and Free-holders and others of the County Palatine of Lancaster. (London, 1646). Truth Triumphing over Errour and Heresie. Or A Relation of a Publicke Disputation at Oxford in S.Marie’s Church, on Munday last Jan 11. 1646 between Master Cheynell a Member of the Assembly, and Master Erbury the Seeker and Socinian (London, 1646). Van Dixhoorn Chad ed. The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly 1643–1652 (Oxford, 2012). Whitelocke Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs from the beginning of the reign of Charles the first to the happy restoration of King Charles the Second (Oxford, 1853). Young Robert ed. Historical Notices of Old Belfast and its Vicinity (London, 1896)

Secondary Sources Adamson, John, ‘The Triumph of Oligarchy: The Management of the War and the Committee of Both Kingdoms 1644–1645’ in Chris R Kyle and Jason Peacey eds., Parliament at Work: Parliamentary Committees, Political Power and Public Access in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2002). Anderson, Philip J, ‘Sion College and the London Provincial Assembly, 1647–1660’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History Volume 37, Number 1 (1986) 68–90. Armstrong, Robert, Protestant War: The British of Ireland and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (Manchester, 2005). Braddick, Michael, God’s Fury: A New History of the English Civil Wars (London, 2009). Coulton, Barbara, ‘The Fourth Shropshire Classis, 1647–62’, Shropshire History and Archaeology Volume 73 (1998) 33–43.

Three kingdoms  61 Furgol, Edward, ‘Military and Ministers as Agents of Presbyterian Imperialism in England and Ireland 1640–1648’, in Dwyer John, Mason Roger and Murdoch Alexander eds., New Perspectives on the Politics of Early Modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982). Gillespie, Raymond, ‘An Army Sent From God: Scots at War in Ireland 1642–9’ in Norman MacDougall ed., Scotland and War AD 79–1918 (Edinburgh, 1991). Latimer, William T, A History of Irish Presbyterians (Belfast, 1902). Lindley, Keith, Popular Politics in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997). Liu, Tai, ‘The Founding of the London Provincial Assembly, 1645–47’, Guildhall Studies of London History Volume III, Number 2 (April, 1978) 109–134. Macinnes, Allan, The British Confederate: Archibald Campbell, Marquis of Argyll c. 1607–1661 (Edinburgh, 2011). MacKenzie, Kirsteen M, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms’ in Patrick Little ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (London, 2008). Mahony, Michael, ‘Presbyterianism in the City of London 1645–1647’, The Historical Journal Volume 22, Number 1 (1979) 93–103. Paul, Robert S, The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the ‘Grand Debate’ (Edinburgh, 1985). Powell, Hunter, The Crisis of British Protestantism (Manchester, 2015). Reid, John Stuart, A History of Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1837). Stevenson, David, Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates (Belfast, 1982). Stewart, Laura M, ‘English Funding of the Scottish Armies in England and Ireland, 1640–1648’, The Historical Journal Volume 52 Issue 3 (September, 2009). 573–593. Van Dixhoorn, Chad, ‘Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the Grand Debate’, in Robert Armstrong and Tadhg O’ hAnnrachain eds., Insular Christianities (Manchester, 2013).

2 The failed search for natural and orderly government, 1648–1655

One of the major problems that beset the covenanted interest during the late 1640s to the mid-1650s was their relationship with the monarch. The covenanted were consistent in their loyalty towards the monarch, yet, because of changing events, the specific grounds and reasons for their relationship with the monarch changed. Any relationship with the monarch would involve interaction with the Royalists and the evil counsellors that had led the King astray. Therefore, accommodation with the Royalists could be awkward at best and disastrous at its worst. The threat of an accommodation between Royalists and Presbyterians led to a further deterioration in the Anglo-Scottish relationship in the late 1640s, and this was the driving force behind the Commonwealth’s onslaught against the covenanted interest in the early 1650s. These relationships are commonly viewed separately first in the 1640s and then in the 1650s. However, this chapter will take a different approach and examine the overall period of patriotic accommodation, from looking briefly at the early attempts at accommodation in January 1645, at the beginning of the negotiations at Uxbridge and Newcastle, which detail all the major stumbling blocks between the Royalists and Presbyterians which were to plague both parties in the 1640s and the 1650s, before moving on to look in more detail at the period from the Royalist Engagement of 1648 to the end of Glencairn’s rising in 1654. In doing so, this allows us to examine several interelated issues during this period, highlighting the consistency and the changes that took place in the relationship between the Royalists and the covenanted interest in the three kingdoms and explain why patriotic accommodation failed. Between 1645 and 1654, there are clear identifiable periods of contact between Presbyterians and Royalists. The first period stretches from 1645 to 1647, where negotiations took place within the context of the deterioration of the Anglo-Scottish relationship. The Uxbridge Treaty negotiated between January 1645 and July 1646 carried the hopes of the covenanted interest in the three kingdoms for a covenanted monarch. The covenanted also sought an alternative treaty with France. Foreseeing a blockade by the Independents, the Covenanters made approaches to the Scottish Royalists. The Treaty of Uxbridge was a failure, and the King was offered

Failed search  63 the Propositions of Newcastle which, again, carried the hopes of the covenanted. These propositions also failed, leading to the withdrawal of the Scots army from England. The second point of contact was the Royalist Engagement in December 1647. This caused a major rift between the Royalists, the King and the covenanted interest in the three kingdoms. The impact of the Engagement had a significant effect on Anglo-Scottish relations and triggered major changes for the covenanted interest in the three kingdoms and their relationship with the English Parliament. The third major point of contact was the creation of Charles II as the covenanted monarch in the three kingdoms in the early 1650s. This effort reignited the links and cooperation between Presbyterians in all three kingdoms after the regicide. The final point of contract was Glencairn’s rising and conspiracy across the three kingdoms during the mid-1650s which, despite resulting in failure, significantly changed the relationship between the English Republic and the covenanted interest in the three kingdoms.

The ideal of the covenanted monarch and legitimisation The monarch was given a central role in the covenanting imperative, as seen in both the National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. The legal and religious precedent of the National Covenant was rooted in the Confession of Faith, which had been subscribed by James VI, and the 1590 band which pledged to maintain the King’s person. Following these precedents, the National Covenant declares to preserve his King’s majesty, person and sovereign authority by upholding and recognising the monarch’s place at the pinnacle of the natural order in society. The monarch was a central component of a balanced constitution that brought stability to the country comprising Kirk, Estates and the King. Indeed, the reason for the country’s slide into instability stemmed from the King overreaching his natural authority due to poor advice from his councillors and creating imbalance. To restore stability to the country, the King has to govern with reference to laws and acts already passed by the Scottish Parliament. The preservation of the King’s authority went hand in hand with the preservation of Parliament’s authority. The monarchy was an essential and inviolable institution grounded in royal descent and ancient privilege. The monarchy preserved the natural order, maintaining people’s livings and privileges. Charles I had made a solemn oath to God to preserve religion and society at his coronation, and the National Covenant was a natural extension to this oath.1 The Solemn League and Covenant continued to place the monarch at the heart of a constitutional structure which pledged stability and peace through the defence of the authority of parliaments, liberties and the preservation of the King’s authority.2 The Propositions of Uxbridge were created out of an Anglo-Scottish effort which reaffirmed the pledges made in both Covenants. The Propositions applied the ideals within the covenants to the current political and

64  Failed search military circumstances, taking advantage of the King’s position after the defeats of the summer campaign in 1644. It was an attempt by the covenanted interest to reassert the importance of the Anglo-Scottish relationship in the face of Cromwell and the Independents. Indeed, the propositions were to be framed and to be carried through in the express interest of both Houses of Parliament and the Convention of the Parliament of Scotland. Above all, the propositions sought the sanction through the monarch to maintain the peace between the kingdoms and uphold the covenanted federative union. The first stage in this process was the removal of the Royal proclamations, declarations and oaths which competed with, or sought to delegitimise, the legal basis of the revolution by stating that covenanting was incompatible with monarchical government. The propositions, like the Covenants, claimed that in doing so the King would be following the example set by his father. It is unclear how this legal precedence would work in an English context and is left unexplained, but it is clear that efforts were weighted towards gaining grassroots support with the King playing a key role in encouraging subscriptions which were to be authorised through an Act of Parliament and Royal assent. The propositions also requested royal authorisation for the Anglo-Scottish religious settlement by the Westminster Assembly, sanctioned by both parliaments and committees in Scotland. This included royal recognition of the abolition of the Church of England and bishops in Scotland. It also requested extra institutions to support the Anglo-Scottish relationship, such as an Anglo-Scottish committee to keep the peace between both nations, which would prevent the King from destabilising the regal union between both countries. This wish to formalise a form of regal union in and between the three kingdoms extended to Ireland, where it was to be governed directly from Westminster. To ensure that the regal union remained in Protestant hands, thus fulfilling the providential destiny of the island, all heirs and successors to the throne had to be educated and brought up in the Protestant faith. This was a genuine but perhaps naive view of the ideal monarch held by the covenanted Scots, whom, in the opinion of Denzil Holles, MP and known advocate of the Anglo-Scottish effort, ‘still carried about them their sense of allegiance and duty to the person of the King whom they did desire to be reinstated on his Throne and Kingly Government with such a power and in such a way that might be good for him and the people’, or as David Buchannan in Truth Manifest succinctly put it, ‘both kingdoms resolved to try, yet again, if they could reclaim and recall, upon any reasonable terms an abused and mislead prince from his evil courses of undoing the people and himself’.3 However, the attempt to create a covenanted monarch failed because Charles I rejected the proposals, which came as a bitter disappointment to those who wanted to formalise the Anglo-Scottish union through the monarch. Charles I did not see himself as a covenanted monarch but as the continuing Head of the Church of England. He stated that he would accept the Covenant if the Church of England could coexist beside the reformed

Failed search  65 English church, but, presumably, this request was politely declined by Parliament’s commissioners. Charles I’s monarchical ideal differed vastly from that of the ‘covenanted interest’. Charles I continued to see his role as the primary creator and arbiter of the law rather than overseeing its preservation and precedence. Charles I had been reminded by his Queen that he had a ‘lasting obligation’ to preserve the kingdom, and this included his role as Head of the Church of England. The balance of the negotiations upheld Charles I’s position from the outset, with Parliament’s commissioners coming to Oxford, and with little direction, this allowed the King to question the commissioners’ power to treat during the negotiations. Baillie knew there would be difficultly in persuading the King to accept the treaty. Those who favoured a successful treaty knew the answer lay in the King’s hands but yet blamed the Royalist court in Oxford. The inability to blame the King can perhaps be judged as blinkered and naïve, but, nevertheless, it fitted into the covenanting imperative that the King was misguided by evil counsellors4 However, other problems had arisen during the negotiations which threatened to destabilise Anglo-Scottish cooperation. The English Parliament was well aware that the Scottish Covenanters had been looking for alternative allies and treaties with other countries during negotiations. In the months after Scottish Covenanters used the London printing presses to great effect to convey commitment to the alliance, it was also used to promote the ideal covenanted monarch to the wider public. In the Declaration of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament, it is openly admitted that negotiations failed, blaming failure on ‘adversaries’ and the Royalist courtiers, who were portrayed as ‘unnatural monsters’ fixated on private interests which were destroying the public peace and actively promoting the King’s place within the constitution, against a King constrained by the laws and parliaments of both nations. By refusing these proposals, the King was putting the stability of the three kingdoms at risk.5 The King fled Oxford in the spring of 1646 and headed towards the Scottish army camped at Newark. Accommodation was driven by the Covenanters, who wished to end the military threat posed by Montrose and the Scottish Royalists. The role of the monarchy within the Covenanting imperative had not changed, and Charles I was encouraged to legitimise and endorse a Presbyterian Church settlement and a monarchy constrained by the laws and legislation endorsed by both parliaments. Many covenanters were fully aware of the futility of these negotiations in Newark and had noted Charles’s continued loyalty to the Church of England, which Baillie described as ‘mad’, seeing war on the horizon. Despite his misgivings, Baillie blames the courtiers and royal advisers who have ‘bewitched, poisoned and infatuated a good prince’. A central part of the discussions at Newark revolved around the disbandment of Royalist forces in Scotland, therefore sealing the triumph of the Covenanting government after Philiphaugh in 1645. Charles I managed to negotiate safe passage for Montrose out of Scotland. For the Covenanting government, there was the obvious

66  Failed search advantage that the Covenanters would be rid one of its most infamous adversaries. However, there was an advantage for the King. Often, when the King had run out of hard military options, he would explore the possibility of conspiracy and covert attacks against his enemies. He advised Montrose to travel to France and wait upon further instruction. This was not Charles letting Montrose go, but rather a King who had further possible plans up his sleeve.6 Fearing the New Model Army would try to influence matters, the Scots moved the King to Newcastle and began to formalise negotiations by offering him the Propositions of Newcastle in July 1646. The Propositions of Newcastle, similar to those at Uxbridge, promoted a covenanted King restricted by the laws of the English and Scottish Parliaments and sought to establish the English Parliament’s authority over Ireland, sanctioning a covenanting federative union over the three kingdoms. Propositions included the abolition of the Bishops and the Church of England and in its place the religious settlement as proposed by the Covenant and the Assembly of Divines.7 Like the Uxbridge propositions, the Newcastle propositions were the result of rather open and at times public discussions over the withdrawal of the Scottish army from England, with the English Parliament and the Scottish commissioners publishing discussions in the presses. Anglo-Scottish deliberations over the Newcastle propositions took place over a nine-month period. The publication of the papers of the Scottish commissioners laid bare the cracks in the relationship. For the Scottish Covenanters, the Newcastle propositions had formed a wider network of Anglo-Scottish treaties since the early 1640s where the Solemn League and Covenant had a central place. The commissioners believed in a joint and equal union between both countries and complained that the English Parliament’s proposals would downplay union, especially in relation to uniformity in religion, Ireland and the military. A more comprehensive analysis was published in Edinburgh for a domestic audience. Publicly, at least, the English Parliament acknowledged the Scots’ role in preserving the ‘interest and the liberties’ of the kingdom in England and that the preservation of the English parliamentary interest rested squarely on good relations with the Covenanters providing security and prosperity to both nations in pursuit of common goals. The English Parliament admitted it had fallen short in the implementation of the religious settlement but urged the Scottish commissioners to acknowledge the good work already achieved, refuting Scottish charges of negligence. They continued to argue that they could not curtail the debate over the religious settlement in Parliament, as it would breach parliamentary privilege, but Parliament fully endorsed ‘our Resolutions’ for a well-grounded peace in the three kingdoms.8 However, when the propositions were presented to the King, the differences in perception between his personal view of his role compared to that of the covenanted monarch were fully exposed. Interestingly, both sides in

Failed search  67 the negotiations were fearful of ‘unkinging’ and the erosion of the monarch’s position by hostile forces. The negotiations also highlighted the differing views amongst the Covenanters about how far Charles I should and could be pressed to accept the proposals and fulfil the role of a covenanted monarch. There was a hardline position and a more moderate position. From the outset, the discussions were public with Andrew Cant zealously accusing the King of favouring popery, and Robert Blair, clearly embarrassed, pulled Cant back, arguing that this was not the time nor the place to interrogate the King. The following day, the ministers got little satisfaction from the King. It was clear from this point onwards that the ministers took a change of tack and decided to discuss the proposals in a series of private conferences so as not to expose themselves to onlookers. In a series of private conferences, they tried to convince the King of their just desires, with some ministers on their knees and in tears. Despite the emotional pleas, the King could not be persuaded. Some leading Covenanters believed that the ‘unkinging’ had begun when the House of Commons responded to the monarch and the King losing the trust and respect of his people. Baillie feared that the English Parliament would declare against the person of the King and seek to reject him as their sovereign, replacing him with Charles II. For many Covenanters, the acceptance of the proposals would have resulted in the restoration of monarchical authority across the three kingdoms, but instead there was nothing but a ‘sea of confusions’ ahead.9 The King had been fearful of ‘unkinging’ himself and refused the proposals for ‘judicial reasons’. The King did not see himself as the covenanted guardian of the law but as the ultimate creator and the ultimate executor of the law and the fountain of justice. Publicly, Charles seemed very amenable to the Covenanters, but privately, it was a completely different story. According to Robert Moray, the King disliked every proposition and found the Presbyterians rude. He hoped that he could either come to negotiate better terms in London or that a negotiated peace in Ireland would be to his advantage. The Covenanters, sensing resistance from the King, sought to pander to his ego, and Alexander Henderson, one of the more favoured Presbyters in the negotiation, was allowed a private exchange of papers to discuss the propositions with the King.10 Henderson opened the exchange by declining the King’s offer for a disputation between Anglican divines and his Presbyterian colleagues but offered the King biblical evidence of his role as a reformer, citing that the Kings of Judea were those that wished to reform the churches of Israel. Henderson argued that Henry VIII’s reformation was imperfect and that presently, there is more separation and schism, implying that the King’s endorsement of the propositions would stem the religious divisions in England. Now is the right time to perfect the reformation with the King upholding the oath taken by his father, King James, and his household in 1580. Charles I replied that Edward VI and Elizabeth I had already perfected the reformation through the establishment of the bishops which his own father upheld, and, as his

68  Failed search son, he knew his own father’s mind better than Henderson. Henderson continued to state that the right to reform the church did not only belong to the monarch and that the King should not force the Presbyters against their conscience. In reply, the King continued to undermine the legality of the covenanting position by stating that the Covenanters’ interpretation of the 1580 oath by King James was wholly wrong, and he further maintained that the grounds of the Scottish rebellion were invalid and unlawful, thus endangering the King’s conscience and undermining his authority as monarch of the three kingdoms. Henderson, backed into a corner, replied that James VI preferred Calvin to Augustine, but Charles utterly refused to confirm this and any scriptural evidence which Henderson attempted to throw in his direction. There was certainly no love lost between these two men and no narrowing of the chasm between the Royalist and the Covenanting views of monarchy.11 This is further confirmed when we examine the official replies to the Newcastle Propositions which Charles I submitted to the Houses of Parliament at Westminster between August 1646 and May 1647. He believed that the person and office of the monarchy would be greatly diminished as ‘he can never condescend unto what is absolutely destructive to that just power which, by the laws of God and the land, he is born unto’. The monarchy has been undermined through ‘misinformations and misconstructions’, and he challenged Parliament to give him the right to present his case. He further argued that his ability to act fully and freely as a monarch had been severely curtailed. God gave Charles the power to freely judge what is good for his people without his conscience being oppressed by the English Parliament and the Scottish commissioners. Any concessions in this context could never be kept, as these had been obtained under ‘force or by restraint’. Charles was willing to agree to some of the proposals and even endorse the Presbyterian Church settlement for three years, but he could not, in all conscience, endorse the Covenant, nor significantly change the relationship between the Crown and the militia as the power of the sword was given to him by God for the protection of his people. The attempt to create a covenanted monarch through negotiation had clearly failed both for the Scottish commissioners and those favourably disposed towards the Anglo-Scottish alliance.

The engagement: the centrality of Anglo-Scottish relations and the preservation of monarchy The next major attempt at a Presbyterian-Royalist accommodation was in December 1647. The Engagement was an agreement between Charles I and some senior members of the government in Scotland to aid the King if the English Parliament did not fully resurrect the Anglo-Scottish agreements and treaties, which included the Covenant. Sometimes wrongly labelled as a ‘Royalist’ Engagement, it is, in effect, a hybrid agreement which pursued many covenanting aspirations but allowed the King greater room for

Failed search  69 manoeuvre than had hitherto been allowed. It pledged loyalty to the Covenant without the creation of a covenanted king and a fully covenanted three kingdoms, but pursued an equitable union between both kingdoms. In the Engagement, Charles I pledged to protect those who have taken the Covenant and to endorse the Anglo-Scottish liturgy. However, he and his household could practise the Anglican faith. From a traditional covenanting perspective, this was a contravention of their interpretation of the 1580 oath by allowing the King freedom of conscience to uphold his own Anglican interpretation. However, both parties would agree to the suppression of sectaries throughout England, thus restoring order within the English church and kingdom.12 The theme of the restoration of law and order in England continued when it was stated that Sir Thomas Fairfax, by arresting Charles I and taking him to Holdenby in June 1647, was a military act which drove a wedge between a sovereign and his subjects. Therefore, the Engagement aims to restore the proper relationship between the sovereign and his subjects by requesting that his majesty should come to London in safety and that the English Parliament would be restored. In doing so, this would uphold the AngloScottish treaties’ pledge to honour the English and Scottish parliaments. Anglo-Scottish cooperation would be resurrected through the discussion of any propositions and treaties. Interestingly, Charles was partially restored as a creative legislator rather than under the Covenant as an overseer of the law. The Engagement restores Charles I’s power to distribute offices and favours as long as an army was sent from Scotland into England for a lasting peace and union between both nations with the encouragement of free trade and the plantation of Ireland. Anglo-Scottish cooperation on councils and high offices was to be distributed by an equitable system of governance for generations to come.13 The Covenanters and the Royalists both feared that the King’s honour had been damaged due to his confinement as a prisoner by the English army, and they had shared opposition to the arbitrary and unlawful force the army had imposed on the constitution. Both parties saw the passing of the Four Bills as a breach of Anglo-Scottish covenanted obligations. A key difference between the Royalists and the covenanted interest was an emphasis on Charles as a legislator, whereas the Covenanters did not wish to overturn the established legal parameters in Scotland as enshrined in the Covenant, a key advantage over the Royalists.14 It is notable that a concerted effort by a small group of lay Covenanters, along with the Commission of the Kirk, sought to mobilise the long-standing mechanisms, institutions and contacts in both England and Scotland which successfully undermined the Engagement. The Independents wanted to participate in opposing the Engagement but only out of self-interest, as it would prevent the English Parliament from facing a full-scale military and political alliance. Due to the Marquis of Argyll’s success, the Engagement began as an attempt at accommodation which quickly evolved into an effort that depended highly upon the actions of Royalists in both England and Ireland.

70  Failed search The efforts by Argyll and the Kirk to use the Anglo-Scottish framework to their advantage were successful in making many English Presbyterians withhold their distrust of Cromwell, but the defeat of Royalists allowed Cromwell to dictate the parameters of Anglo-Scottish relationship. Consequently, this halted the joint effort by the covenanted in both England and Scotland to maintain the honour and posterity of the monarchy. As soon as the Engagement became public knowledge in the early months of 1648, the English Independents, usually implacable obstructers to the ambitions of the Scottish commissioners in London, made an exerted effort via the Assembly of Divines to declare that they shared the same values as their Scottish allies. Testimony to this was allowing Scottish declarations against the Engagement to be printed in London. Baillie noted that Cromwell was driving this effort to pull Presbyterians and Independents together in order to halt the threat of a Presbyterian-Royalist accommodation. The Royalists also feared an alternative accommodation between Argyll and Cromwell15 The English Commissioners, recognising the danger posed by a Royalist-Presbyterian accommodation, had, in January 1648, offered the Marquis of Argyll £50,000, which was a quarter of the whole debt the English Parliament still owed to Scotland for military services. This large payment was all the more glaring considering that it bypassed the usually slow and cumbersome process of repayment. Clearly, therefore, the English Parliament was keen to keep Argyll in its pocket. This was part of a wider plan to work with the covenanted interest in both countries, and the English Parliament appointed the Earl of Warwick at the head of a committee to draw up instructions for commissioners in England who were to visit Scotland. According to Hamilton’s informants, Argyll was in regular correspondence with the Earl of Manchester. In a reversal of attitude, the English Parliament was keen to inform the City of London about correspondence from the Scottish Estates, but in the meantime, Argyll’s primary job was to have private meetings with key military figures such as David Leslie to prevent him working with Hamilton to raise a Presbyterian-Royalist force. An exchange of correspondence between leading Independents and a minority of Covenanters was maintained throughout 1648. Royalists were well aware of the financial incentive for Argyll to join with the English Parliament and encouraged Hamilton to directly pay substantial monies to Argyll to offset the alliance.16 In March 1648, the English commissioners arrived in Edinburgh, and the unimpressed resident French diplomat noted that whilst the English commissioners were of lowly status with little knowledge, Argyll kept an ‘extraordinary correspondence’ with them. The English commissioners pledged to uphold the Covenant in England by establishing a Presbyterian Church government. Even the resident diplomat could see through the empty promises of the English commissioners, noting that the two nations would find it hard to agree on key points and preserve the monarchy. It was later admitted by the secretary of the English commissioners in Scotland that they sought

Failed search  71 to bribe the Scottish Kirk. A royalist commentator noted how one English commissioner, Mr Herle, preached in Edinburgh but did not pray for the King and Mr Marshall was barred from preaching due to his sympathy with the sectaries. However, George Gillespie, a key figure in Westminster Assembly and the faction in the Kirk opposing the Engagement, allowed Marshall to preach. It is clear that there were tensions under the surface despite the public facade of Anglo-Scottish cooperation. Cooperation took place amongst a tight-knit and well-connected set of individuals. One of the commissioners, William Ashurst, was a noted English Presbyterian who supported the Cheshire minister Henry Newcome in his parish. Ashurst was also a favourite of the Marquis of Argyll and Archibald Johnston of Wariston. These individuals regularly met in private conferences with each other, mirroring the creation of private networks. The Commission of the Kirk drew up an oath of association or band of maintenance to bind together those who shared its objections to the Engagement and pledged loyalty to the pursuance of covenanted uniformity through negotiation with the English Parliament. Sincere in his pledges, Argyll worked with the English Parliamentary forces to regain the town of Berwick from the Royalists, whilst the London Presbyterians Calamy and Burgess acted as intermediaries between the English army and the City of London.17 It is clear that the Commission of the Kirk feared Hamilton’s invasion would destroy the union between the two nations as outlined in the Covenant, and it sincerely believed that Cromwell would maintain the religious and constitutional pledges under the covenanted union. Between March and June 1648, the Commission of the Kirk routinely undermined the Engagement’s wish to promote an accommodation between Presbyterians and Royalists across the kingdoms. The Commission sent correspondence to the English Parliament and the Assembly of Divines, encouraging them to uphold Anglo-Scottish cooperation and the Solemn League and Covenant. The Commission declared that the Engagement could not promise the honour and safety of the King, declaring that the Royalists were ‘masters’ of the alliance and, as such, the accommodation was in the hands of those who were not concerned with upholding the reformed religion. On 11 August 1648, the Commission of the Kirk renewed the commissions of covenanted uniformity and declared that Hamilton’s invasion was not justified. It continued to state that the King’s safety was better guaranteed by bringing the King to London and negotiating a constitutional settlement with the English Parliament. Indeed, the Commission upheld the illusion of a joint Anglo-Scottish effort by printing a letter from the House of Commons, ordering it to be read in the pulpits across Scotland. The Kirk continued to have the liberty of the printing presses in London, where they declared that Hamilton’s defeat was a judgement against an unlawful war against England. The Kirk noted that its campaign to woo the English Presbyterians was a key part of its efforts to undermine Hamilton and that it had gained support and assistance from the City of London. In maintaining

72  Failed search Anglo-Scottish bonds, the Commission sincerely believed that it was reversing the damage done by the Royalist Engagement.18 This renewal of the Anglo-Scottish relationship via old contacts and institutions was so successful that the Royalists, who had originally hoped to use the Anglo-Scottish channels for communication to their own advantage, were forced to focus on the activities of English Royalists during the spring and summer of 1648. From March 1648 onwards, the Scottish Royalists were keen to capitalise on the successes of the English Royalists in the North West, the Midlands and North Wales against the English Parliament, thereby creating a British offensive. Hamilton was also heartened by the occurrence of Royalist risings in Devon, Dorset and Essex, but it did not escape his notice that the Earl of Warwick discouraged Presbyterian petitioners in Essex, asking them not to involve themselves in the rising for fear of conflict between the English Presbyterians and the English Parliament. English Presbyterians were known to have private meetings with the Independents despite their disagreements. Hamilton and his Royalist informants continued to be hopeful that a breach would occur between the Presbyterians and the Independents to enable the King to play to Presbyterian affections, but by April 1648, the alliance between Argyll and Cromwell was a reality, and for some Covenanters, Scotland was being sacrificed ‘to the private interests of men’, depriving the King of his honour.19 Despite this, in August 1648, Hamilton entered England, declaring war against Covenant breakers, and ordered Langdale to take Berwick and Carlisle, hoping to appeal to English Presbyterians in the North West on route. During the risings in Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincoln English Royalists tried to unsuccessfully engage English Presbyterians. In reality, the Royalists regarded the invasion as an attempt to rescue the King to preserve his full honour, freedom and safety whilst promising the King’s adherence to the Scottish reformed faith as established by law. However, it was clear upon their entry into the North of England that Royalist attempts to appeal to English Presbyterians were futile and the propaganda campaign waged through the Anglo-Scottish networks and institutions had succeeded. As the Royalist James Turner recalls, one of the key figures in the Battle of Preston 1648 was a Colonel Ashton, who raised 3,000 men against Hamilton’s forces and who openly declared that the Royalists had come into England without the General Assembly’s permission. Hamilton was eventually chased to Whitchurch within the bounds of the Shropshire Classis, where he found many forces raised against the Royalists. The impact of the invading Royalist army on the functioning of Presbyteries in the North of England was minimal. The Manchester Classis met without any interruption, and the Provincial Assembly of Lancashire also convened in August 1648, but Manchester did not send a representative to the Assembly, fearful of ‘present dangers’. Sadly for the Royalist army, they had entered England at a time when there was a real concerted effort to establish ministers in parishes and enforce Presbyterian discipline

Failed search  73 within classes. Therefore, many Presbyterians in the North West turned their backs on Royalist calls to join them, knowing that it would cause dislocation and disruption.20 After Hamilton’s defeat, it was clear that the union between both nations was to be negotiated on strictly English terms because the old Independent lethargy returned and the promises to renew covenanted uniformity were delayed in the Westminster Assembly. Cromwell’s relationship with the anti-engagers in Scotland should be seen within the context of the continuing obligations of both kingdoms under the Solemn League and Covenant. Cromwell was in Scotland between mid-September and early October to assist the anti-engagers to defeat the remainder of their opponents. For Cromwell, it was not an opportunity for a renewal of the Covenant but to secure England’s northern border to ensure there were no more invasions from Scotland. In the spirit of the covenanted union, the anti-engagers hoped that their Royalist opponents would lay down their arms and there would be no requirement for Cromwell to enter Scotland. They wrote to Cromwell, ensuring him that engager forces would be disbanded and insisted that they had a desire to ‘preserve the union between the two kingdoms’. In addition, they offered to cooperate with Cromwell and assist him in regaining Berwick and Carlisle from the Royalists. In doing so, Argyll’s faction was observing the Covenant and the treaties between the two kingdoms, as they were joining forces to defeat a common enemy, and proposed that these common Royalist enemies should be brought to trial. However, there were genuine fears amongst the Scottish populace that Cromwell’s visit to Scotland could turn into an English invasion. Cromwell was only tolerated for his assistance in defeating the anti-engagers, and during his time in Scotland, Cromwell was increasingly seen as a foe that could destroy the covenanted union between the two nations. There was an atmosphere of mistrust between the anti-engagers and Cromwell in 1648, despite the public show of unity. Pamphlets were printed in Edinburgh and London which highlighted the thanks and cooperation between both nations, where there was ‘mutual love’ between each other and both nations hoping for a successful peace. The reality was rather different, as Cromwell made it clear to Argyll’s anti-engager faction ‘how far the late Engagement had tended to the detriment of England’, and it was on these grounds that Cromwell demanded the exclusion of the Engagers from power. This was not a balanced negotiation for the sake of both nations but one solely for the benefit of England. Cromwell had a meeting with some leading ministers of the Kirk, including Robert Blair, minister of St Andrews, who began to question Cromwell in order to ascertain Cromwell’s genuine feelings about the Solemn League and Covenant. During the discussions, Cromwell agreed to uphold and preserve the King and his posterity but would not answer a key question on Presbyterian Church government. The ministers did not trust him, and their suspicions were justified when Charles I was executed in January 1649.21

74  Failed search

The covenanted monarch: natural and orderly government for the three Stuart kingdoms Immediately after the execution, the Presbyterian ministry across the three kingdoms sprung into action and declared Prince Charles, Charles I’s successor, to be the King of Britain, Ireland and France. Arguably, from 1649 to 1653, the threat of Presbyterian-Royalist accommodation was forever present in various guises, and this explains why the English Commonwealth sought to actively dismantle covenanting institutions throughout the three kingdoms. The ‘Presbyterian’ threat has been viewed initially from a London-centric perspective focusing on the arrest, trial and execution of Christopher Love, culminating in a Presbyterian plot of 1651. Arguably, the threat of a Presbyterian-Royalist accommodation was more far reaching and complex than hitherto has been appreciated. In fact, in its secret reports, the Commonwealth noted it was dealing with a variety of clustered events throughout England, with networks of correspondents in Scotland, London and the North of England. English authorities were also concerned by the actions of the Presbyterian ministry in Ulster who were potentially sympathetic towards the Royalists. The threat was deemed so severe during the impending invasion of England by Charles II that Mercurius Politicus played down the extent of the threat and even encouraged English Presbyterians to desert the Scots and join with their Independent brethren. The underlying cause which bound Presbyterians in the three kingdoms together and encouraged Presbyterian-Royalist accommodation were the printed declarations in favour of the new monarch. These declarations had many similarities but also many differences, as they appealed to the native cultures and the different immediate contexts in each kingdom at the time. It was this combination of loyalty and a clear wish to engage with various audiences across the kingdoms whilst drawing attention their common cause that made the Presbyterians a danger to the English Commonwealth. The London ministers’ Apologeticall Declaration and Serious and Faithfull Representation, published just before and during the trial of Charles I, had brought the Conclave to the English Parliament’s attention, not just for its condemnation of the proceedings, but also for its continued vow of loyalty to the office of the monarch. These printed protestations of loyalty to the young Charles II continued briefly in an Anglo-Scottish framework, confronting the vitriol of the Independent backlash. Presbyterians in Ulster drew strength from the Conclave’s declarations, drawing upon them for their own Necessary Representation. In the Serious Representation, it was argued that the office of monarchy was instituted by God and is the foundation of all orderly government, the removal of which would cause disorder and anarchy. The monarchy in England must be tempered by a properly constituted parliament. The war was not about the abolition of the monarchy but the removal of corruption. Corruption is already present with the rise of the private interests alongside the New Model Army and the purged parliament.

Failed search  75 The retention of the monarchy under the Covenant is paramount and key to a balanced constitution and the preservation of parliament’s liberties. The Apologticall Declaration published a week later restates many of these points and declared to uphold the honour of the King, as he is the head of the Commonweal. It is notable that they tried to appeal to English audiences by using language found within radical army pamphlets such as the Agreement of the People, making reference to ‘arrests and imprisonments’ contrary to the Magna Carta, ‘our freeborn English spirits’.22 This attempt to appeal to English freeborn subjects failed, and the arguments were revised and launched in an Anglo-Scottish framework against the backdrop of the frantic efforts of the Scottish commissioners in London to save the King’s life. A Vindication of the Ministers of the Gospel by the London Provincial Assembly was published four days before the King’s execution and printed by Evan Tyler in Edinburgh, printer to the King in Scotland. Clearly, the Anglo-Scottish networks were still active, and there was communication between the Covenanted Interest in both countries. In this pamphlet, the London Presbyterians denounced suggestions by the Independents that the London Presbyterians were in favour of the King’s trial. London Presbyterians continued to uphold their loyalty to the office of monarchy, stating that current events were being driven by the private interest of men, with sinister motives outside traditional boundaries and laws. Noting the impending execution of the King, they stated their continued affection towards the King’s posterity and that the office and person of the monarchy was the foundation of justice and the law. They actively encouraged those who had taken the Solemn League and Covenant to stand by their oath and protest against proceedings, recognising the fundamental government of the kingdom. Eight months later, in August 1649, The Scots Vindication managed to bypass the tightening of censorship of the London press. Published anonymously but originally published in Edinburgh, it included a letter from Loudon to a ‘worthy friend in England’. The Scots Vindication is an interesting piece of propaganda, as one of its primary purposes was to bury or camouflage news of any serious divisions between Royalists and Presbyterians in Scotland. In addition, issues regarding censorship meant that the English Presbyterian position was communicated through the aspirations of the Scottish covenanted interest. Many of the arguments regarding the upholding of the King’s posterity reflected two statements published by Charles II and the Scottish government in July 1649: The Declaration of the King of Scotland concerning the Parliament of England and The Declaration and Resolution of his Highnesse the Prince of Wales Upon the Death of His Royal Father. Thus, the Scots Vindication was designed as a short version of these pamphlets, which may never have been published in England. Another pamphlet, the Brotherly Exhortation, intended for London Presbyterians and written by Scottish Covenanters, was printed in London almost two weeks after its initial printing in Edinburgh in August 1649. Again, attempts to overcome censorship can be detected, as the author or printer was not

76  Failed search named and avoided any discussion about Charles II. The pamphlet offered English Presbyterians support in their religious endeavours, especially the work of uniformity and to ‘preserve so far as in us lieth that fellowship and correspondence that hath been entertained betwixt the Church of Scotland and England these years past’.23 Not only was the Commonwealth confronted by continuing AngloScottish exchanges, but it was also fully aware of the printed propaganda emanating from Presbyterians and Royalists in Ireland during this period, as evidenced by the Necessary Representation issued in February 1649 and the Declaration of the British in Ireland in May and A Declaration of the Presbytery of Bangor issued in July the same year. The latter two were printed in Edinburgh and were not subjected to the Independents’ critical analysis. These declarations made it clear that significant sections of the Scots in Ireland, both Presbyterians and Royalists, recognised Charles II’s right to the throne, but on certain conditions. The abolition of the office of monarchy was a breach of the Covenant, a disorderly and loose action which overturned the laws and liberties of the kingdoms, along with the natural order as ‘Princes walk as servants upon the earth’. The role of the covenanted is to maintain the rightful social order and the power of the Crown as pledged in the Covenant. These issues were brought into focus in the Declaration of Bangor, which provides a valuable insight into the limitations placed upon Royal power under covenanting arrangements. Viscount Ards was criticised for exercising Royal commands without assurances from the Prince that he would abide by the Covenant because, at that point in time, the Prince had refused the latest offer in negotiations. Any form of sovereignty can only be exercised by the heir and acted upon by his subjects within a covenanting framework. The Presbytery justified this by stating that without a covenanted framework, Prince Charles would be allowed to exercise the same powers his father did before the civil wars. Not only did this lay waste to the Covenanting cause, by allowing the future King to have absolute power, but it could also lead to corruption and the reinstatement of Prelacy with the unbridled use of military power. Prince Charles was to be a monarch with limited powers under the Covenant.24 These aspirations were reflected in the negotiations that took place between the prince and the Scottish commissioners in the Hague during 1649, much to the dismay of notable English Royalists. The most significant expression of the covenanted monarchy under Charles II took place during his coronation at Scone in January 1651. Publicised to reach a wider audience to promote the realisation of a covenanted monarch, it was also to provoke feelings against the forces of Cromwell in Scotland and act as a direct challenge to the existence of the English Republic. Furthermore, it also attempted to mask divisions within the Kirk over the issue and give a false impression of unity whilst also casually ignoring the already obvious signs that Charles may fall short of their ideals. Nevertheless, it remains a powerful expression of an ideal Covenanted monarch who was to reign over

Failed search  77 three Stuart kingdoms. Throughout the pamphlet, order and consistency are promoted, either through the taking of the Covenant or ceremony and procedure. The nobility was present at the Coronation in order of rank to emphasise the social order and hierarchy under the monarch. The young King was seen as the antidote to the unnatural and ‘private’ and ‘individual’ actions of the Commonwealth, with the ability to restore order to the kingdoms in the public interest. As a covenanted King, Charles’s power was not absolute, but limited and part of a balanced constitution where he was accountable both to God and the Scottish people under oath. Likewise, Scottish people were bound in loyalty to their King as a duty to both themselves and God. Crowns are prone to ‘totter’; therefore, to retain his legitimacy, he had to denounce his family’s sins. In short, it was a conditional crown. Charles had to uphold the reformed religion as established in Scotland, and these conditions were sanctioned by Scottish law and confirmed by the Scottish Parliament. Under these arrangements, the King’s power was justly limited, to avoid the exercise of arbitrary power. These arrangements contrast sharply with the absolute power of Royalist thought and the confusion, anarchy and disregard for the monarchy promoted by the English Republic. Interestingly, the State-sponsored newspaper Mercurius Politicus played down the coronation of Charles II. There was no direct or overt attack but, rather, the tone was slightly mocking, with little detail of the ceremony and why it was taking place. Although it was acknowledged that Charles was crowned, he was called the King of Scots, rather than his full title, King of Britain, Ireland and France. The coronation was derided as a ‘Royal Game’, and Mercurius Politicus highlights the divisions between the Royalists and the Covenanters in an effort to undermine any hopes of PresbyterianRoyalist accommodation within England, and it sarcastically comments that the Kirk is ‘dancing after the Royal pipe’. Indeed, in the same issue, events were reported with disbelief, as an English officer in Scotland comments, ‘I scarce believe it will be done when this Nation hath felt the smart of war a year more, their country will hardly be in a capacity to maintain an army’. Thus, the coronation posed little threat to the English Republic, aided by the surrender of Edinburgh Castle and the English Army’s advance on Stirling. Only through full recognition of the English Republic’s sovereignty can people obtain security and defence, a level of protection which the King of Scots cannot provide. According to the correspondent, the Scottish people did not enjoy the ceremony but instead reflected on the misfortunes that were to befall them. The crown put on the King’s head was cheap and, according to the correspondent, ‘made of sliver with double gilt’, which was stated to further delegitimise the process in the eyes of the readers.25 Reading the foremost propaganda, you would be forgiven for assuming that the English Republic had very little to worry about, but Mercurius Politicus was actively dismissing or playing down any threats. Nowhere was this more obvious than in what historians call the ‘Presbyterian plot of 1651’, a series of coordinated risings by Presbyterians and

78  Failed search Royalists planned to coincide with the Scottish army’s entry into England. Private intelligence reports highlight the very serious nature of the threat to the regime. Since Charles I’s execution, the English Commonwealth was fully aware of potential Royalist-Presbyterian collaboration and had kept watch. The plot was discovered in March 1651 and led by Thomas Cooke, who was seen as a ‘perfect Presbyterian’ by exiled Royalists. The plot centred on a network of correspondents all over Britain, but very little of the intelligence was published in Mercurius Politicus. There was no mention of a ‘Presbyterian’ plot, although the Scots were the enemy. Marchamont Nedham, the editor of the newspaper, actively and publicly undermines any potential English Royalist-Presbyterian alliance, stating that the Presbyterians are ‘for the King’s ruine’ and are victims of a ‘pretended’ friendship from the Scots. He encouraged them to rethink their position because, if not, their livelihoods would be under threat and the ministry would be rooted out. Again, the Scots were of paramount interest as barbarians and foreigners. It was not until the end of April that a potential collaboration between English Royalists and Presbyterians was highlighted, but Nedham restrained himself from any direct attack and declared the Scottish King will ‘use’ the English Presbyterians.26 There were good reasons for downplaying the threat. Under interrogation, Thomas Cooke revealed a whole network of correspondents, plots and plans against the English Republic which resulted in the arrest of English Presbyterians and the subjection to English military pressure. The reality of the situation was far more mixed than Thomas Cooke’s interrogation would suggest, but nevertheless, even after the defeat at Worcester, any potential participants in any alliance with the Scots, including English Presbyterians, were regarded as a significant threat. The intelligence report makes mention of significant Royalist movements in the North of England and in areas where there was a notable classical presence, such as Derbyshire, Cheshire and Lancashire. Indeed, the planned rendezvous was Warrington in Cheshire, where there were easy links with Lancashire to the North and Royalists in North Wales and Shropshire. This rendezvous was to coincide with risings of major landowners and Catholics in Cornwall, with one Presbyterian involved, a Mr Grewen. As already noted by historians, there was also a design being fermented in London, and it is no surprise that the government focused on it intensely, as it represented the closest threat to Westminster itself. However, this does not render any of the other threats in England any less significant, particularly those in the North of England. Arguably, its proximity to Scotland and its distance from London would cause Westminster equally as many problems. The English Commonwealth was fighting networks on many fronts: firstly, the London Presbyterians had been communicating with likeminded brethren in Leicestershire, Northampton, Derby and Hull, encouraging preaching in congregations. There was also a note of intelligence between Presbyterians travelling between Scotland and York. In fact, the English Commonwealth was very suspicious

Failed search  79 of communications between Scotland, the Earl of Derby and Lancashire Presbyterians. Furthermore, it would also not have escaped the notice of the English Commonwealth that there was a tight network of English Presbyterians covering North Wales, Shropshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, and these intelligence reports resulted in a heavy military presence in these areas. In April 1651, Sion College in London was ordered to be used for the quartering of soldiers, and Thomas Harrison was appointed as Commander in Chief of forces in the North of England. He was ordered to look out for any English forces passing through the north on their way to Scotland and the Isle of Man. This would suggest that the Commonwealth was aware of the possible threats coming from the North of Ireland. The garrisons of Chester and Derby were to be reinforced, and Harrison was ordered to suppress any insurrections and intercept any intelligence. It is clear that the English Commonwealth was gearing up for a potentially serious Royalist-Presbyterian alliance.27 In reality, just how serious was the threat of a Royalist-Presbyterian alliance in the North, and did military pressure from the English Commonwealth have any impact on the activities of the Classical Presbyterians in the area? It appears the Republican Engagement successfully divided the English Presbyterians in the North of England and fractured the potential for a strong Royalist-Presbyterian accommodation. In Cheshire, both Newcome and Martindale noted the varied response amongst Classical Presbyterians in the North and the West Midlands. They also highlighted how easy it was for the Commonwealth authorities to suspect Presbyterians, just by the nature of their day-to-day activities, even though there was no active collusion with Scottish forces in the area. It had been known to the authorities for some time that the Classical Presbyterians had been actively engaged in a debate with Independents and that the Cheshire Presbyterians had strong links with the Presbyterians in London. In reality, these contacts were more to do with publishing tracts against toleration for local disputes rather than any form of conspiracy. Both Newcome and Martindale were aware that refusing the Republican Engagement would automatically label them as conspirators in the eyes of the Commonwealth. Indeed, writing against the Engagement, even without any other evidence, made you a suspect in any potential plots. There was a lot of itinerant preaching amongst the clergy all over the North and in the Midlands, which added to suspicions, even if they were unfounded. For example, Newcome preached in Newcastle, Staffordshire, and Lancashire during this period and, aware of the current situation, he was careful to preach on standard subjects at funerals and Sunday services. Newcome willingly took the Engagement in December 1650 and in all probability for want of money. He had become friends with a captain in the Commonwealth forces who encouraged Newcome to keep a low profile, stating for those vocal against the government, livings would be at risk. It is clear that resistance to the Engagement was an individual choice, not a collective activity by classes. When the Scots entered Cheshire in August 1651,

80  Failed search both Newcome and Martindale were keen to avoid them at all costs. After Worcester, Presbyterians who had preached against the Engagement were rounded up and arrested on suspicion of correspondence with the Scottish forces, although, according to observers, they had just been cleaning churches in Manchester after the Scottish forces retreated, and according to Newcome, there was no evidence of collusion.28 It is also noted by Barbara Coulton that divisions within the Shropshire Classis over the Engagement resulted in Thomas Paget becoming leader of the Classis at the expense of those who had rallied against the Engagement. Paget had published a sharp critique of Anglo-Scottish cooperation between English and Scottish Presbyterians and their declarations in favour of Charles II. This was clearly driven by Paget’s wish to retain his prime position within Shrewsbury Cathedral which he owed to the Independentdominated City guild. Indeed, a fierce and open critic from the inside such as Paget was an absolute gift to the English Commonwealth, who eagerly printed his views in London, seeking to undermine any potential alliance between Presbyterians and Royalists. According to Paget, the Royalists were malignant with a Prince not fully committed to a covenant. In stirring up questions against the Commonwealth, his Presbyterian brethren were encouraging division and ‘spiritual warfare’. It is clear from the beginning that Paget avoided using the term ‘Britain’ and took a very Anglo-centric approach noting the ‘Supreme Powers . . . of our Native Country’. The purpose of the pamphlet was to persuade his brethren to accept the Engagement. He openly stated that any plots or collusion with the Scots would push the English people against Presbyterian Church government. He urged his brethren in England and Ireland to remember the tyranny of Prelacy and the suppression of non-conformity by the monarch and declared that both the Vindication and the pamphlets issued by the Presbytery in Belfast had distorted the past. He was critical that they remain tied to an AngloScottish framework for their own stubborn principles whilst completing the reformation by cooperating with other English non-conformists. In a direct message to the Kirk of Scotland, he argued against continuing an AngloScottish framework, as providence was now the overriding factor in the success of the English Republic, highlighting that it is sanctioned by God. He argued that it was a testing time for both countries, but the Scots should concentrate on their own reformation and own providential experiences, even if the Scots have had 107 kings, if God dictates the line of succession be swept away, it would be a just and fitting judgement: providence overrides law, tradition and forms of government. He urged the Scots to remember the religious transgressions of Charles I and James I, noting the Articles of Perth and the Prayer Book. He argued that not all clauses of the Covenant were of equal value and that the preservation of the reformation comes before loyalty to the King, and the Scots have allowed uncommitted Royalist malignants to take the Covenant, to which Paget retorts, ‘Let the lookers on yea, and your own consciences judg’.29 The English Commonwealth may

Failed search  81 have won at Worcester and managed to launch effective propaganda, but the threat of an alliance did not disappear and as early as 1652 unrest in Scotland began and grew into a major rising, putting the English regime in a defensive position.

Royalist conspiracy and the failure of patriotic accommodation English policy towards Presbyterians in Ireland was formulated against the backdrop of Glencairn’s Rising. The English regime feared that the Royalists and Presbyterians could unite to threaten the State, and there was a genuine belief that Presbyterians would encourage insurrections in Ireland to coincide with the Rising in Scotland.30 The Republican Engagement was pressed upon ministers in Ireland in August 1652. The main catalyst for this was the publication of the Act for the Settling of Ireland in the same month which required ‘persons (having no real Estate in Ireland or personal Estate to the value of Ten pounds) . . . shall take and subscribe to the engagement’.31 Presbyterian ministers would have fallen into this qualification because they had been ejected from their parishes, with their stipends confiscated by Parliament, and the Scottish landed elite in Ulster complained of their ‘poor condition’.32 The pressing of the Engagement upon ministers should also be seen within a Scottish context. The extension of the Engagement to Ulster was a security measure, as there was clearly Royalist activity at the time. In August 1652, it was reported that ‘Glengarry and his associats, encreaseth daily’. The English government had pressed the Tender of Incorporation amongst the Western Highland population, with very little success.33 On 4 September 1652, a government order issued in Ulster advised: As to the Scotch ministers, you will observe the directions in our letter to you of the 18th of August last, or you will use the same course for the seasonable and timely prevention of such numerous & tulmultous assemblies of disaffected people. The Scotch Gentry meet under the pretence of hunting.34 Furthermore, in June 1652, Charles II had corresponded with the Resolutioner Assembly, asking them for their support. In return for their efforts he would find ways to relieve them from the ‘sacrilege’ of the English occupation. It was generally known that Presbyterians in Ireland had strong links with the Scottish Kirk because it had sheltered ministers after they fled Ireland in 1650. For the English government, the Engagement was designed to extract loyalty and to prevent communication between Presbyterians in Ulster and Scotland. The government in Dublin certainly feared that Ulster Presbyterian ministers would start insurrections.35 The English government wished to clamp down on ‘malignant persons who know no(t) how to use liberty in a gospel way, that do stir up people to sedition and strife’.36

82  Failed search In January 1653, Royalist conspiracy in Scotland became a reality and Ulster Presbyterians were again called before commissioners and asked to live in peace and not encourage any insurrections.37 In the previous month, a large store of arms to be used by the followers of Glencairn was discovered behind a church wall in Houston, Renfrewshire, in the West of Scotland.38 In February 1653, Sir George Munro and James Boyde, Ulster Scot agents of Glencairn, left Ireland to join the conspiracy in Scotland and again, in March 1653, the Engagement was pressed throughout Ireland.39 Presbyterians in the North of Ireland were under particular suspicion, and ministers’ houses were ransacked for any secret correspondence with the King.40 In April, Robert Lillburne, then Commander in Chief of the English forces in Scotland, believed that the Royalists aimed to capture the whole nation and start trouble in the North of Ireland. It was known by the English government that Ulster Presbyterians and Scottish Presbyterians were in correspondence with each other regarding public affairs. To prove this, the English government printed a letter destined for Gilbert Ramsay, minister of Bangor, written by a friend in Scotland. This letter, despite making no comment on the King or the rising in Scotland, detailed the ‘great defeat’ the Dutch had inflicted upon the English and called Oliver Cromwell ‘a great enemy’. This proved that the Presbyterians in Ulster were disaffected with the regime. In the following month, the Engagement was pressed on Presbyterian ministers in Ulster and, again, they refused. The security problem remained unresolved, and with the knowledge that a now fully formed army was operative in the Highlands, Presbyterian ministers were threatened with transportation to England.41 The Presbyterian ministers were still unrelenting, and with the security threat unresolved by May 1653, the Ulster commissioners devised a policy of transplantation of Ulster-Scot landowners to the South of Ireland. Did Presbyterian ministers actually encourage insurrection in the North of Ireland, and did they encourage people to cross the Irish Sea to aid Glencairn? If English measures are taken at face value, it would appear so, but this is more deceptive than real. The ministers in Ulster consulted their Scottish counterparts and were advised to continue praying for the King but not to get directly involved in armed conflict, and this is seemingly how the Presbyterians in Ulster conducted themselves.42 The English government had overestimated the actual threat that Presbyterians posed to the North of Ireland. The Scottish Kirk, now divided between Protesters and Resolutioners, was not central to events, but it was, nevertheless connected to and affected by them. Resolutioners gave the Rising moral support by praying for the King and Protesters became victims of raids by Highland clans.43 The English government saw no ‘cause and effect’ between the Rising and prayers for the King.44 However, the Resolutioner General Assembly was shut down because of intelligence that Robert Douglas was in correspondence with leaders of the Rising and English Presbyterians.45 The dissolution

Failed search  83 only intensified Resolutioner prayers for the King.46 In January 1654, clearly frustrated, the English government threatened ministers with ejection from their parishes.47 The English were aware of the use of the parish structure to recruit and raise taxes to aid the Rising, and Lillburne stated that people would be liable for extra taxes if there was any Royalist activity within parish bounds.48 Despite the Rising being a predominately Royalist affair, the Royalists did approach the Kirk for support.49 In June 1652, during early preparations for the Rising, Charles II wrote letters of encouragement to the landed elite in Scotland and the Moderator of the Resolutioner Assembly: I could not give my selfe leave to be sylent at a time, when you may do God and your King so much service, without telling you how much I rely upon you, and am concern’d in you, and comforted by the constancy of your affections to me, which your greatest enemies acknowledge and reproach you with.50 Charles II regarded the loyalty of ministers as an asset to be harnessed for the Rising. He also realised that prayers by the clergy were an irritant to the English and that the clergy could also be used to encourage waverers to support him.51 Royalists also used the Presbyterian Church structure and its fabric to support the Rising. Kirks were used as meeting places to discuss the Rising, and taxes were to be raised by the heritors in parishes.52 Letters to participants in the Rising were directed to a Kirk where the recipient picked up the letter. Therefore, the Royalists were using the Kirk as some form of secret postal service.53 In February 1654, it was found that the Earl of Atholl and Sir Arthur Forbes used the Kirk at Dunkeld, along with its manse, to form part of a Royalist garrison.54 In response to a request by Lord Kenmure to hide arms in its church, the Presbytery of Hamilton held a discussion regarding the actions of Royalists and the English. It was decided that English actions had done more harm to the people of Scotland than the Royalists, and therefore, the church agreed to store arms for the Rising behind its walls.55 It has to be remembered that the Royalists only used the Kirk as part of a wider policy to use ‘allyes of what religion soever’ and stated conflict between different religious groups was forbidden.56 This, of course, naturally put restrictions on getting Presbyterians involved, fearing that their loyalty to the Covenant and Presbyterianism might start conflicts with other groups.57 However, in February 1654, Charles put forward the proposal that ‘the Moderator of the General Commission of the Kirk to recommend unto you such faythfull and godly ministers for the severall charges in the army as may be most like to advance the good worke in hand’.58 General Middleton was advised that ‘moderation and temper’ were important to the strategy’s success. In private instructions, Charles again pressed that those invited were not to promote faction, nor interest, putting the unity of the army at risk.59 Therefore, public declarations by the

84  Failed search leaders of Glencairn’s Rising issued until early 1654 never made any reference to the National, or Solemn League and Covenant or the Kirk, just the King and kingdom. In February 1654, a declaration issued by the Earl of Glencairn to the parishes requested that people do their ‘duty to the King and country, tyes of covenant, love of religion’.60 This was further asserted in July 1654, when those who refused to provide taxes towards the rebellion were declared enemies to ‘Kirk, King and Kingdome’.61 Why, all of a sudden, did the Kirk become part of the King’s cause? Perhaps the answer lies in the Court’s problems in stemming divisions between different leaders of the rebellion and the successful lobbying from the Covenanted faction in the Court. The King, who had originally seen the Kirk and its Covenanting principles as a potential catalyst for disunity in the army, began to see the Covenant as a tool that he could use to unite the differing factions. Balcarres believed that promotion of the King’s cause would benefit from uniting participants under the Solemn League and Covenant.62 This idea was rejected, but in November 1653, Hyde was instructed to draw up a declaration stating, ‘Those in arms in Scotland, although adhearing to the Covenant, welcome persons of all opnions who will join with them against the common enemy, and therefore they refused to subscribe to a bond which would have obliged them still to procced on ill grounds’.63 This declaration prepared by Edward Hyde, the King’s leading adviser, believed that a planned landing in Scotland was, in his own opinion, one of the hardest pieces of work he had undertaken for the King, especially with regard to the King’s relations with the Kirk which, in Hyde’s opinion, the King was best to say nothing.64 Hyde recognised the King’s dilemma was maintaining the loyalty of those who supported the Covenant and the Kirk but not to alienate any support he would gain from Catholic and Episcopalian sources. He also recognised that the Covenant could damage the King’s cause abroad.65 In October 1654, as the infighting continued, Charles II requested that the loyal clergy endeavour to heal divisions between the leaders of the Royalist army in Scotland.66 So, how did Resolutioners and the Protesters view events around them? In 1653, in reaction to the English authorities banning prayers for the King, several ministers for the Resolutioner camp wrote an immediate response on the day of the declaration. They refused to stop praying for the King, regarding it as their duty to do so under the obligations of the Solemn League and Covenant as written in the Directory for Public Worship and the Word of God. The King was a ‘Covenanted King’, and therefore, they had a duty to pray for him. They believed God would judge them by their actions and feared God much more and the punishments he might inflict upon them because of breaches of the Covenant. Indeed, they saw the English declaration as a means to test their faith and to defend the divinely warranted Presbyterian Church government. They did not want to be seen as ‘Covenant-breakers’or turncoats by the godly of Scotland.67 John Waugh, a Resolutioner minister imprisoned for praying for the King, still felt that it was his duty to continue to pray, and he was not afraid of any punishments the

Failed search  85 English regime might inflict upon him. He believed that God was with him, giving him ‘courage, joy, peace and contentment’, and he would remain loyal to the King.68 In December 1653, the Resolutioners issued a ‘Presbyteriall warning’ to be read in all pulpits throughout Scotland. It stated that they should ‘give glory to God’, despite his wrath and his judgements upon the kingdom of Scotland, and that people should endeavour to ‘live peaceablie under the yock of the prevalent power’ and to suffer what God chose to visit upon them. This was not a call to arms, nor even a call to pray for the King, even though they recognised Scotland as a kingdom. In doing so, it was in accordance with the advice they had given to Presbyterians in Ireland, to undertake their trials and tribulations peacefully.69 Indeed, as Baillie declared in July 1654, to the best of his knowledge no minister had been involved in the Rising but had been content to publicly pray for the King as their conscience dictated because the Covenant and Directory of Worship required it and discouraged rebellion.70 Clearly, the letters from the King to Robert Douglas were ignored, either by Douglas or his Resolutioner colleagues in the General Assembly. Douglas did not ‘send ministers to unite all who have faithful hearts to the King’. As late as June 1654, it was still hoped that the Royalists could ‘induce the ministers to preach against the [English] rebels’.71 The reluctance of ministers might have been due to their interpretation of the Solemn League and Covenant. It declared that Covenanted subjects of the kingdoms would defend the King’s person, with their lives and estates in defence of the true Reformed religion.72 These elements were interconnected and inseparable. Ministers in Thurso complained to Middleton that ‘there was not enough concerning religion’ in his declaration of February 1654. In other words, the safety of the ‘true religion’ could not be guaranteed.73 Furthermore, the recruitment of Presbyterian ministers into the King’s forces was inhibited by the fact that Glencairn believed that people should fight for the King without any ‘conditions, Covenant or restrictions’.74 Whilst Royalists unsuccessfully courted Resolutioner support for the Rising, the Protesters, on the other hand, feared attacks from Highlanders due to a perception that the Protesters were loyal to the Cromwellian regime. In a story relayed by Wariston to his friend David Hume, Kenmure’s soldiers paid Wariston a visit. The soldiers intimidated the family by threatening to shoot them; however, the family refused to be intimated, which Hume put down to the strength of Wariston’s faith in the personal covenant he had with God. Wariston and his family were disgusted by the behaviour of these men because of their ‘swearings, cursings, whoorings’. In Wariston’s opinion, God was going to destroy these men for their ‘cruel barbarity’. Furthermore, he believed their actions would give the ‘injust captivaters’ an excuse to defend the land and the Scottish lowlanders against Highland armies, helping to win the Scottish populace over to the English regime.75 Wariston was not prepared to give his full approval to the English forces

86  Failed search either because its army was also full of ‘blasphemies, heresyes, errors’, and he believed that the Lord, in his own time, would reckon with them. Indeed, Wariston recommended to the Marquis of Argyll that he should not get involved with any side in the conflict, either ‘sectaries’ or ‘malignants’. The reasons for his continuing distaste of ‘malignants’ stems from a belief that the Royalists regretted taking the Covenant and continued to promote the King’s headship over the Church by believing that the King could place and displace ministers at will.76 Therefore, due to the reluctance of both parties, Presbyterian and Royalist attempts at accommodation failed. The exiled Royal Court did not harness English Presbyterian support because they were too close to the Cromwellian government. Clarendon obtained reports that ‘Presbyterians’, such as Sir Thomas Fairfax and Colonel Montagu, had accepted seats in the Barebone’s Parliament. This image of Presbyterians participating in parliamentary affairs of the regime continued with the establishment of the First Protectorate Parliament.77 It was known that Cromwell was trying to win Presbyterians over to the regime, that they were included in the religious establishment and given a measure of toleration. In fact, it was feared that English Presbyterians would betray Royalist intelligence to the ‘ruling rebels’. In April 1655, Hyde estimated that if Royalist insurrections took place ‘Presbyterians would sit still’.78 Correspondents with Sir Edward Nicholas ruled out any Covenanted alliance or patriotic accommodation between English Royalists, English Presbyterians and Scots because it was believed that the Scots had damaged the King’s reputation. There was also a distrust of Presbyterians who had fled imprisonment in England in order to help the King, such as Edward Massey, for fear it might be a plot by Cromwell to gain intelligence. English Presbyterians were seen as ‘crafty’ and untrustworthy.79 Furthermore, the small group of Presbyterian conspirators living in the Netherlands were dangerous ‘loose cannons’, and it was feared they would impose ‘conditions’ on the King and alienate Prelates and Catholics.80 At the centre of Royalist conspiracy in England were prominent members of the Sealed Knot and the Action Party who did not have any real connections with those practising Presbyterian Church government. Indeed, those most prominent in the Sealed Knot were those who favoured Prelacy, Catholicism or who were of no known firm religious convictions. One of the Knot’s first principles was that the King should abandon any Presbyterian alliance or Covenant as the basis of his support. Despite this, the King gave the Knot permission to negotiate with Presbyterians and Catholics, including all former enemies, except the regicides. The basis of the idea of inviting Presbyterians to join was the knowledge that they had supported the King previously, but any alliances with Presbyterians would have to be on strictly Royalist terms.81 The ‘Action Party’, like the Knot, wanted to restore the King, but their attempts were characterised by desperate, half-planned schemes promoted by ‘hot-heads’. Unlike the Sealed Knot, the Action Party did enlist people with Presbyterian connections to their cause, such as the

Failed search  87 group in the Netherlands. They also tried to recruit Presbyterian figures within England such as Sir William Waller, but they did not enlist any of the elders and patrons of ministers who participated in the Presbyterian classes and associations.82 There are logical reasons why the Presbyterian classes and associations did not participate in the Royalist conspiracies during the mid-1650s. Members of classical associations had stronger links with Parliament than with the King, and this is exemplified when we examine the Shropshire Classis and the failed attempt by Royalists to take Shrewsbury in 1655. The Royalist conspiracy in Shropshire took place in March 1655, led by Sir Thomas Harris, Ralph Kynaston and Sir Arthur Blaney, who had planned to take the town of Shrewsbury and Chirk Castle. However, the plans failed because the government anticipated events. Sir Thomas Harris was the young son of a former Royalist, and Ralph Kynaston, who had converted to Catholicism, was the son of the ejected Anglican rector of Myddle. Sir Arthur Blaney had been a member of the Harlech garrison, the last to surrender to Parliament during the first phase of the civil war in England and Wales. The basis of Royalist conspiracy in Shropshire was Anglican, Catholic and Royalist.83 In contrast, the majority of those who were known members of the Shropshire classis were very loyal to Parliament. John Bryan became an assistant to the Triers in 1654. Joshua Richardson owed his rectorship in Myddle to Parliament because Parliament had obviously ejected Kynaston’s father. Samuel Hildersham also had a position on the 1654 commission. He had been a representative for Shropshire in the Westminster Assembly and was still very loyal to Parliament. Thomas Porter was named as being a representative on the Triers committee for Shropshire in 1654 and supported Parliament against the Royalists during the early 1650s. Andrew Parsons of Wem was appointed to the Commission in 1654 and his patron, Robert Corbet of Standwardine, was on the Commission of the Peace for the county during the 1650s. Thomas Gilbert, another minister belonging to the classis, was also on the Commission of 1654 and worked for the government in the months after the Rising in 1655, helping to gain new justices for the county. The Lord Protector had been ‘very affectionate’ towards him and, more significantly, Thomas Gilbert acted as an inquisitor and intermediary between Sir Thomas Harris and the government to gain the truth about the Royalist rising.84 Samuel Campion, another minister in the Shropshire Classis, was also on the commission for the county Ejectors in 1654, and his patron was Henry Vernon, who had taken part in the Commonwealth’s efforts to secure Shropshire against a Royalist rising in 1650. Minister Richard Heath was named as an assistant to the Shropshire Commission in 1654, along with his colleague Francis Tallents. The former had been presented to the parish by the English Parliament. All of the above were too close to Parliament, and therefore, it is no surprise that Presbyterians in Shropshire were not asked to join the conspirators.85 In north Wales, the two parishes tied to the

88  Failed search Shropshire Classis also supported the English Parliament. John Puleston of Emral, patron of Philip Henry, had long-standing links with the Long Parliament and had been a very loyal and active member of the Rump Parliament. He had been on the Commission for the Propagation of the Gospel in Wales in 1650 and was on many of the parliamentary committees for Denbighshire and Flintshire during the 1640s and 1650s. Furthermore, Richard Steele, the other Presbyterian minister in north Wales, in the parish of Hamner, owed his position in the parish to fellow Shropshire Classis minister Thomas Porter and to John Puleston. It is therefore very unlikely that either of these ministers in north Wales, nor their patrons, would have taken part in Royalist conspiracy in the area – especially because one of the instigators of the planned rising in north Wales was the son of the former Bishop of Bangor, Dr Bailly, who resented the replacement of Anglican clergy by Presbyterians.86 As a letter from Wrexham to an army officer in London declared: far from supporting the uprising in March 1655, ‘[a]ll sorts seeme carefull to preserve the common peace. The presbyterians and independents make but one party in this’.87 The Exeter Assembly, formed in October 1655 in the months after Penruddock’s Rising, made an agreement and declared: That in or consultations & debates wee will not meddle with civil or secular matters, or any state affaires, nor goe beyond the bound of or calling, but treate of those things only which concerne us in or Ministerial function for the discharge of or duty, & seeking the spritiual good of the soules of the people committed to or charge.88 Many of the other Classical associations that had been set up around the same time, such as Cornwall and Nottingham, did not state the same pledge. This should not be taken as a sign of Royalist sympathy but as a defence against attacks by Independents in these areas. In 1654, the Independents accused Presbyterians of disloyalty. The Presbyterian ministers published a reply to the accusations, refuting the allegations, but did fear the authorities might believe them. Therefore, those who were associating at Exeter had to make it clear to the government that they were not posing a threat.89 Major arrests took place after Penruddock’s Rising, but no known Presbyterian ministers were arrested.90 The nature of Royalist resistance in England was different to that of Scotland whereby it was a highly secretive affair and not an open war. It was a war by stealth, where Royalists would use surprise as their most effective tactic, catching the regime unaware and under prepared. Conspirators could not afford ministers to display any outward sign of support for the King by preaching or praying for the King in public. The fact that various Royalist-Presbyterian alliances failed is a highly significant one, and this had a major impact on the trajectory and direction of the civil wars in the three kingdoms. The failure of an agreement between the King and the Presbyterians is one of the major ‘forks in the road’ that

Failed search  89 led to the execution of Charles I. Likewise, the failure of any agreement in the 1650s stalled the restoration of the Stuarts to the throne and led to a concerted and aggressive effort by the English Republic to integrate the covenanted interest into the political community of the Commonwealth, albeit under conditions and continued suspicion.

Notes 1 Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 1968) 124–133; Margaret Steele, ‘The Politick Christian’: The Theological Background to the National Covenant’ in John Morrill ed., The Scottish National Covenant in Its British Context (Edinburgh, 1990) 41–43, 56–57; Allan Macinnes, Charles I and the Making of the Covenanting Movement(Edinburgh, 1991) 173–176. 2 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 267–271; David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution 1638–1644: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 1977) 285–286. 3 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 275–282; Francis Messeres ed., Select Tracts Relating to the Civil Wars Volume I (London, 1815) 202; David Buchannan, Truth Manifest (London, 1645) 61; Mary Green ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644–1645 111. 4 William Dunn MacKay and Henry Coxe eds., Calendar of Clarendon State Papers Volume 1 I 290; Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644 314; Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644–1645 142–143; Messeres, Select Tracts 212; David Laing ed., The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1841) Volume II 211, 244; Buchannan, Truth Manifest 62–63. 5 Allan Macinnes, ‘Covenanting Exchanges With the French Court During the Wars of the Three Kingdoms’ E-rea Volume 11, Number 2 (2014) 8–12; David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter Revolution 1644–1651 (Edinburgh, 1977) 45–55; Lords Journal Volume 7 240–241; A Declaration of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament With the Advice and Concurrence of the Commissioners of Scotland (London, 1644) 1–40. 6 Stevenson, Revolution and Counter Revolution 43; Laing, Letters and Journal of Robert Baillie Volume II 371–381; Mark Napier, Memorials of Montrose and His Times (Edinburgh, 1848) Volume II 633–642; Geoffrey Smith, Royalist Agents, Conspirators and Spies (Aldershot, 2011) 89–118. 7 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 290–306. 8 Some Papers of the Commissioners of Scotland, Given in Lately to the Houses of Parliament, Concerning the Propositions of Peace (London, 1646) 1–26; The Answer of the Lords and Commons Assembled in the Parliament of England at Westminster (London, 1646) 1–16; Papers Delivered in by the Commissioners of the Kingdome of Scotland at London (Edinburgh, 1646) 1–60. 9 Thomas McCrie ed., The Life of Robert Blair, Minister of St Andrews, Containing His Autobiography From 1593 to 1636 With a Supplement to His Life and the Continuation of the Times Until 1680 (Edinburgh, 1858) 102–103; Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie II 383–390; Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Hamilton Papers: Being Selections From the Original Letters in the procession of His Grace the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon Relating to the Years 1638 to 1648 (London, 1880) 106, 108–112. 10 Laing, Letters and Journals II 386; Henry Guthry, The Memoirs of Henry Guthry: Containing an Impartial Relation of the Affairs of Scotland, Civil and

90  Failed search Ecclesiastical From 1637 to the Death of King Charles I (Glasgow, 1747) 226; Dunn Mackay and Coxe eds., Calendar of Clarendon Papers I 320–327. 11 Dunn Mackay and Coxe eds., Calendar of Clarendon Papers I 320–325. 12 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 347–353. 13 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 347–353. 14 Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 26–29; Gardiner, Hamilton Papers 7; Gilbert Burnet, The Memoirs of the Lives and Actions of James and William, Duke of Hamilton and Castle Herald (London, 1852) 405–433. 15 Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 47, 55, 62; M Green ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1648–1649 (London, 1893) 39–54; Gardiner, Hamilton Papers. 7, 152–158; Burnet, Hamilton Memoirs 437. 16 Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1648–1649 12–23; J.G Fortheringham ed., The Diplomatic Correspondence of Jean De Montreuil and His Brothers De Bellivere: French Ambassadors in England and Scotland 1645–1648 Volume II (Edinburgh, 1898) 399; Charles Harding Firth ed., ‘Narratives Illustrating the Duke of Hamilton’s Expedition to England in 1648’ in Miscellenacy of the Scottish History Society (Edinburgh, 1904) 295; Samuel Rawson Gardiner ed., ‘Hamilton Papers Addenda’ in Camden Miscellany Volume 9 (London, 1880) 18n; Gardiner, Hamilton Papers 161–164 17 Fortheringham, Montreuil 399, 466, 482; Firth, Narrative of the Duke of Hamilton’s Expedition 295–296; Guthry, Memoirs of Henry Guthry 258, 264; Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 53; Church of Scotland, General Assembly, Acts of the General Assembly of Scotland From the year 1638 to 1649 (Chapel Hill, 2009) 397–398; Gardiner, Hamilton Papers 169. 18 Alexander F Mitchell and James Christie eds., The Records of the Commission of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland holden in Edinburgh in the years 1648 and 1649 (Edinburgh, 1896) 3–102; Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 37–42; Church of Scotland, Acts of the General Assembly 436–466. 19 Burnet, Hamilton 436; Gardiner, Hamilton Papers 164–175. 20 Dunn Mackay and Coxe eds., Clarendon State Papers I 432–433; Gardiner, Hamilton Papers 248–250; Sir James Turner, Memoirs of His Own Life and Times (Edinburgh, 1829) 63; Richard Parkinson ed., Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852), 11; Richard Parkinson ed., The Life of Adam Martindale Written by Himself (Manchester, 1845). 77; William Shaw Minutes of the Manchester Classis I (Manchester, 1890) 89–90; Barbara Coulton, ‘The Fourth Shropshire Classis 1647–62’Shropshire History and Archaeology Volume 73 (1998) 35. 21 Mitchell and Christie, Records of the Commission of the General Assembly 1648–9 124; Kirsteen M MacKenzie, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms’ in Patrick Little ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (London, 2008) 153–154. 22 London Provincial Assembly, A Serious and Faithfull Representation of the Judgement of the Ministers of the Gospell Within the Province of London (1649) 1–19; An Apologeticall Declaration (London, 1649) 1–8. 23 London Provincial Assembly, A Vindication of the Ministers of the Gospel (London, 1649) 1–6; The Scots Vindication (London, 1649).1–4. Brotherly Exhortation.G. Assembly 1649 (London and Edinburgh, 1649) 1–8. 24 Presbytery of Belfast, A Necessary Examination (London, 1649) 1–22; The Declaration of the British in the North of Ireland (Edinburgh, 1649) 1–6; The Declaration of Bangor (Edinburgh, 1649) 1–5. 25 Mercurius Politicus No. 31. 2 January – 9 January 1651 504–518; Mercurius Politicus No. 32. 9 January – 16 January 1651 519–533.

Failed search  91 26 Leland H Carlson, ‘A History of the Presbyterian Party from Pride’s Purge to the Dissolution of the Long Parliament’ Church History Volume 11, Number 2 (1942) 108–112; Mercurius Politicus March 27 – April 3 1651.691; Mercurius Politicus 3 April – 10 April 1651 703–704; Mercurius Politicus 10 April – 17 April 1651 710–711; Mercurius Politicus 17 April – 24 April 1651 735–736; Mercurius Politicus 24 April – 1 May 1651 751–752. 27 Historical Manuscripts Commission, The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Portland Preserved at Welbeck Abbey (London, 1891) I 582–597; Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic1651 150–179; Carlson, ‘A History of the Presbyterian Party’ 115–122. 28 Parkinson, Life of Adam Martindale 61–101; Parkinson, Autobiography of Henry Newcome I 24–33. 29 Coulton, ‘The Fourth Shropshire Presbyterian Classis’ 36; Thomas Paget, A Religious Scrutiny Concerning Unequall Marriage (London, 1650) 1–28. 30 Trinity College Dublin, MS 844, Letters and papers relating to Irish public affairs 1647–79 fo 141. 31 Charles Harding Firth and Robert S Rait eds., Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum 1642–1660 (London, 1911) II 802. 32 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/5, ‘Notes Relating to the Ministers of the Gospel’ fo 199; Trinity College Dublin, MS 844, Letters and Papers fo 152. 33 Mercurius Politicus 19 August – 26 August 1652 .1826; A Perfect Diurnall 16 August – 23 August 1652. 2108; Trinity College Dublin, MS 844, Letters and papers fo 141. The commissioners noted how easy it was for Scots to travel between Scotland and Ireland it only took two hours and there were many good landing places round Ireland. The Scots according to the commissioners were going freely between the two countries. 34 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/5, ‘Notes Relating to the Ministers of the Gospel’ fo 97. 35 Charles H Firth ed., Scotland and the Commonwealth: Letters and Papers Relating to the Military Government of Scotland From January 1654 to June 1659 (Edinburgh, 1895) 47–48, 50–53; John Stuart Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (London, 1837) II 259–264. 36 A Perfect Account 25 August – 1 September 1652 691. 37 Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland II 261–264. 38 Mercurius Politicus 30 December 1652 – 6 January 1653 2130–2131. 39 Firth, Scotland and the Commonwealth 87; Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland II 265. 40 Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland 266. 41 Firth, Scotland and the Commonwealth 122–123; The Perfect Diurnall 25 April 1653 – 2 May 1653 2670–2672. 42 Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland II 263. 43 Frances D Dow, Cromwellian Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979).74–77, 86, 99–106, 108–112, 146–147. 44 The Perfect Diurnall 21 March – 28 March 1653 2596; Severall Proccedings in Parliament 7 April – 14 April 1653 2914–2915. 45 Dow, Cromwellian Scotland 160. 46 The Faithfull Post 15 July – 23 July 1653 1089; The Moderate Publisher 12 August – 19 August 2159. 47 David Laing ed., Diary of Public Transactions and other Occurrences, Chiefly in Scotland, From January 1650 to June 1667 (Edinburgh, 1836) 121. 48 Severall Proccedings of State affairs 3 November – 10 November 1653 3407; Laing, Diary of Public Transactions 120.

92  Failed search 49 Firth, Scotland and the Commonwealth 213–216. 50 Firth, Scotland and the Commonwealth 47. 51 Firth, Scotland and the Commonwealth 47–48, 133. 52 Firth, Scotland and the Commonwealth 44, 180, 228, 263–264; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eleventh Report of the Royal Commission of Historical Manuscripts (London, 1887) 136. 53 William Dunn Mackay ed., Calendar of Clarendon State Papers (Oxford, 1869– 1876) II 390; Mercurius Politicus 30 November – 7 December 1654 4056–4057. 54 Charles Harding Firth ed., Scotland and the Protectorate: Letters and Papers Relating to the Military Government of Scotland From January 1654 to June 1659 (Edinburgh, 1899) 47. 55 Laing, Diary of Public Transactions 116; Mercurius Politicus, 30 December 1653 – 6 January 1654 2130–2131. 56 George Warner ed., The Nicholas Papers II (London, 1886–1920) 5. 57 Warner, The Nicholas Papers 8, 10. 58 Warner, The Nicholas Papers 28. 59 Warner, The Nicholas Papers 28–30, 33. 60 Warner, The Nicholas Papers 35. 61 Laing, Diary of Public Transactions 131. 62 Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 250. 63 Mackay, Calendar of Clarendon State Papers II 271. 64 Mackay, Calendar of Ckarendon State Papers 273. 65 Mackay, Calendar of Clarendon State Papers 290. 66 Mackay, Calendar of Clarendon State Papers 197–198. 67 New College, Edinburgh, Pit ms volume copies of political and religious documents fo 77–90. 68 Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 228–230; St Andrews University Special Collections, CH2/210/2, Kilconquar Kirk Session 1653–1660 fo 17. 69 Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 233. 70 Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie 252; John Graham, An Account of the Expedition of William the Ninth Earl of Glencairn (Glasgow, 1820) 61–80; Warner, The Nicholas Papers II 108. 71 Mackay, Calendar of Clarendon State Papers II 309, 371. 72 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents 267–268. 73 Mackay, Calendar of Clarendon State Papers II 373. 74 Warner, The Nicholas Papers II 21–22. 75 National Library of Scotland, Wodrow Oct XV, No 4 ‘Part of Mr David Hume’s Diary’ fos 125–127; James Ogilvie ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 1655–1660 (Edinburgh, 1940) 198–208. 76 Ogilvie, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 209–223. 77 Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1654 324–325; Mackay, Calendar of Clarendon State Papers II 217, 236. 78 Mackay, Calendar of Clarendon State Papers 396, 398; Mackay ed., Calendar of Clarendon State Papers III 27; Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1655 174; Warner, The Nicholas Papers II 82. 79 Warner, The Nicholas Papers 3–4, 32. 80 Historical Manuscipts Commission, Calendar of Manuscripts of the Marquess of Ormonde New.Series I 271–281, 290; Thomas Birch ed., A Collection of State Papers of John Thurloe I (London, 1742) 695–696. 81 David Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy in England (New Haven, 1968) 73–96. 82 Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy 97–126. 83 Underdown, Royalist Conspiacy 146–148; J E Auden, ‘Shropshire and the Royalist Conspiracies Between the End of the First Civil War and the Restoration

Failed search  93 1648–1660’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society 3rd series Volume 10 (1910) 138–149; Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers III 207–211, 216– 220, 229–230, 244–245, 253–255, 265–273, 282–291, 298, 303, 319–321, 341–342, 344, 354–355, 530, 677–678. 84 Birch, Thurloe State Papers III 356; Arnold R Matthews ed., Calamy Revised: Being a Revision of Edmund Calamy’s Account of Ministers and Others Ejected and Silenced 1660–1662 (Oxford, 1934) 83–84, 263, 396, 381–382, 221–222; Bodliean Library, Oxford, Rawlinson A29 (33) To Thurloe from Thomas Gilbert of Edgemond near Shifnal, Shropshire 15 August 1655 fo 298. 85 Matthews, Calamy Revised 100, 411, 474–475, 256; Auden, ‘Shropshire and the Royalist Conspiracies’ 121; G.C. Baugh, A History of Shropshire III (Victoria County History, London, 1979) 112–113. 86 Matthews, Calamy Revised 461; Mercurius Politicus 25 January – 1 February 1654 5100; Auden, ‘Shropshire and the Royalist Conspiracies’ 121; Matthews, Calamy Revised 396. 87 Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers III 214. 88 R N Worth ed., ‘Minutes of the Exeter Assembly 1646–1660’ Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Society for the Advancement of Science, Literature and Art Volume 9 (1890) 279–280. 89 The Copy of a Letter Sent Out of Wiltshire, to a Gentleman in London; Wherein is Laid Open the Dangerous Designes of the Clergy, in Reference to the Approaching Parliament (London, 1654) 1–6, H Chambers et al, An Apology for the Ministers of the County of Wilts, in Their Actings at the Election of Members for the Approaching Parliament (London, 1654) 1–5. 90 Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers III 394–395.

Bibliography Manuscript Sources Bodliean Library, Oxford, Rawlinson A29 (33), To Thurloe from Thomas Gilbert of Edgemond near Shifnal, Shropshire 15 August 1655. National Library of Scotland, Wodrow Oct XV, No 4 ‘Part of Mr David Hume’s Diary’; New College Pit ms volume copies of political and religious documents. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/5, Notes relating to the Ministers of the Gospel. Trinity College Dublin, MS 844, Letters and papers relating to Irish public affairs 1647–1679. St Andrews University Special Collections, CH2/210/2, Kilconquar kirk session 1653–1660.

Printed Primary Sources A Declaration of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament with the advice and concurrence of the Commissioners of Scotland (London, 1644). A Perfect Account 25 August to 1 September 1652 An Apologeticall Declaration (London, 1649). A Perfect Diurnall 16 August to 23 August 1652. Birch Thomas ed. A Collection of State Papers of John Thurloe (London, 1742).

94  Failed search Brotherly Exhortation. G. Assembly 1649 (London and Edinburgh, 1649). Buchannan David, Truth Manifest (London, 1645). Burnet Gibert, The Memoirs of the Lives and Actions of James and William, duke of Hamilton and Castle Herald (London, 1852). Douglas Hamilton, William ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1644–1645 (London,1890). Chambers H et al, An Apology for the ministers of the County of Wilts, in their Actings at the election of Members for the approaching Parliament (London, 1654). Church of Scotland, General Assembly, Acts of the General Assembly of Scotland from the year 1638 to 1649 (Chapel Hill, 2009). Firth Charles Harding ed. ‘Narratives illustrating the Duke of Hamilton’s Expedition to England in 1648’, Miscellenacy of the Scottish History Society (Edinburgh, 1904). Firth Charles Harding ed. Scotland and the Commonwealth: Letters and Papers Relating to the Military Government of Scotland from January 1654 to June 1659 (Edinburgh, 1895). Firth Charles Harding, Scotland and the Protectorate: Letters and Papers Relating to the Military Government of Scotland from January 1654 to June 1659 (Edinburgh, 1899). Firth Charles Harding and Rait R S eds., Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum 1642–1660 (London, 1911). Fortheringham J G ed. The Diplomatic Correspondence of Jean De Montreuil and his brothers De Bellivere: French Ambassadors in England and Scotland 1645–1648 (Edinburgh, 1898). Gardiner Samuel Rawson, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 1968). Gardiner Samuel Rawson ed., ‘Hamilton Papers Addenda’ in Camden Miscellany Volume 9 (London, 1880). Gardiner Samuel Rawson, Hamilton Papers: Being Selections from the Original Letters in the procession of His Grace the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon relating to the years 1638 to 1648 (London, 1880). Graham J, An Account of the expedition of William the ninth Earl of Glencairn (Glasgow, 1820). Green M ed, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1648–1649 (London, 1893). Green M ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic1651 (London, 1877). Guthry Henry, The Memoirs of Henry Guthry: Containing an Impartial Relation of the Affairs of Scotland, Civil and Ecclesiastical from 1637 to the death of King Charles I (Glasgow, 1747). Historical Manuscripts Commission Calendar of Manuscripts of the Marquess of Ormonde New Series I (London, 1908). Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eleventh Report of the Royal Commission of Historical Manuscripts (London, 1887). Historical Manuscripts Commission, The Manuscripts of his Grace the Duke of Portland preserved at Welbeck Abbey (London, 1891). Laing David ed. Diary of Public Transactions and other Occurrences, chiefly in Scotland, from January 1650 to June 1667 (Edinburgh, 1836). Laing David ed., The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1841).

Failed search  95 London Provincial Assembly, A Serious and Faithfull Representation of the Judgement of the Ministers of the Gospell within the Province of London (1649). London Provincial Assembly, A Vindication of the Ministers of the Gospel (London, 1649). Lords Journal Mackay William Dunn ed., Calendar of Clarendon State Papers (Oxford, 1869– 1876). Matthews A R ed., Calamy Revised: being a revision of Edmund Calamy’s Account of Ministers and others ejected and silenced 1660–2 (Oxford, 1934). McCrie Thomas ed. The Life of Robert Blair, Minister of St Andrews, containing his autobiography from 1593 to 1636 with a supplement to his life and the continuation of the times until 1680 (Edinburgh, 1858). Mercurius Politicus No. 31. 2 January – 9 January 1651. Mercurius Politicus No. 32. 9 January – 16 January 1651. Mercurius Politicus 27 March – 3 April 1651. Mercurius Politicus 3 April – 10 April 1651. Mercurius Politicus 10 April – 17 April 1651. Mercurius Politicus 17 April – 24 April 1651. Mercurius Politicus 24 April – 1 May 1651. Mercurius Politicus 19 August – 26 August 1652. Mercurius Politicus 30 November – 7 December 1654. Mercurius Politicus 30 December 1652 – 6 January 1653. Mercurius Politicus, 30 December 1653 – 6 January 1654. Mercurius Politicus 25 January – 1 February 1654. Messeres, Francis ed., Select Tracts Relating to the Civil Wars (London, 1815). Mitchell, Alexander F and Christie, James eds., The Records of the Commission of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland holden in Edinburgh in the years 1648 and 1649 (Edinburgh, 1896). Napier Mark, Memorials of Montrose and his Times (Edinburgh, 1848). Ogilvie, James ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 1655–1660 (Edinburgh, 1940). Paget, Thomas, A Religious Scrutiny concerning Unequall Marriage (London, 1650). Papers Delivered in by the Commissioners of the Kingdome of Scotland at London (Edinburgh, 1646). Parkinson, Richard ed., Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852). Parkinson, Richard ed., The Life of Adam Martindale Written by Himself (Manchester, 1845). Presbytery of Belfast, A Necessary Examination (London, 1649). Severall Proccedings in Parliament 7 April – 14 April 1653. Severall Proccedings of State affairs 3 November – 10 November 1653. Shaw, William, Minutes of the Manchester Classis (Manchester, 1890). Some Papers of the Commissioners of Scotland, Given in lately to the Houses of Parliament, concerning the propositions of peace (London, 1646). The Answer of the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England at Westminster (London, 1646). The Copy of a Letter sent out of Wiltshire, to a Gentleman in London; wherein is laid open the dangerous Designes of the Clergy, in reference to the approaching Parliament (London, 1654).

96  Failed search The Declaration of Bangor (Edinburgh, 1649). The Declaration of the British in the North of Ireland (Edinburgh, 1649). The Faithfull Post 15 July – 23 July 1653. The Moderate Publisher 12 August – 19 August. The Perfect Diurnall 21 March – 28 March 1653. The Perfect Diurnall 25 April 1653 – 2 May 1653. The Scots Vindication (London, 1649). Turner, Sir James, Memoirs of His Own Life and Times (Edinburgh, 1829). Warner, George ed., The Nicholas Papers (London, 1886–1920). Worth, R N ed., ‘Minutes of the Exeter Assembly 1646–1660’, Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Society for the Advancement of Science, Literature and Art Volume 9 (1890).

Secondary Sources Auden, J E, ‘Shropshire and the Royalist Conspiracies between the end of the First Civil War and the Restoration 1648–1660’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society 3rd series Volume 10 (1910) 87–168. Baugh, G.C., A History of Shropshire: Volume III (Victoria County History, London, 1979). Carlson, Leland H, ‘A History of the Presbyterian Party from Pride’s Purge to the Dissolution of the Long Parliament’ Church History Volume 11, Number 2 (1942) 108–112. Coulton, Barbara, ‘The Fourth Shropshire Classis 1647–62’Shropshire History and Archaeology volume 73 (1998) 33–43. Dow, F D, Cromwellian Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979). Macinnes, Allan, Charles I and the Making of the Covenanting Movement (Edinburgh, 1991). Macinnes, Allan, ‘Covenanting Exchanges With the French Court During the Wars of the Three Kingdoms’ E-rea Volume 11, Number. 2 (2014). MacKenzie, Kirsteen M, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms’ in Patrick Little ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (London, 2008). Reid, John Stuart, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (London, 1837). Smith, Geoffrey, Royalist Agents, Conspirators and Spies (Aldershot, 2011). Steele, Margaret, ‘The Politick Christian’: The Theological Background to the National Covenant’ in John Morrill ed., The Scottish National Covenant in Its British Context (Edinburgh, 1990). Stevenson, David, Revolution and Counter Revolution 1644–1651 (Edinburgh, 1977). Stevenson, David, The Scottish Revolution 1638–1644: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 1977). Underdown, David, Royalist Conspiacy in England 1649–1660 (New Haven, 1968).

3 Corruption The emergence of government in the private interest, 1649–1653

On 30 January 1649, Charles I was executed in front of crowds gathered outside the Banqueting House at Whitehall, London, triggering a wave of revulsion and disgust from the other Stuart kingdoms and European powers. The new English Republic became a regime ‘under siege’ and a hated pariah state. Given their proximity to events in London, Presbyterians were the first to voice their opposition to the execution. As Elliot Vernon has already argued, the London Presbyterians saw the unprecedented event as a culmination of illegal and improper actions by the army stemming back to the seizure of the King in 1647. The London Presbyterians published works against the army’s actions.1 The first of these pamphlets, A Serious and Faithfull Representation, explained why Presbyterians in the City had turned down an invitation to a conference with the army on the grounds that the conference was designed to ascertain how London Presbyterians could facilitate the army’s actions with no opportunity to question the legality of the army’s actions. The King was part of a traditional constitution – a King in Parliament from whom stems good governance and an orderly kingdom. By seizing the King, purging the Parliament and imprisoning members, the army had committed illegal actions, replacing established law and governance with the dictates of private persons backed by military strength. This was the overturning of long-held values within the English Parliamentary cause, the rights and privileges of parliament and the traditional constitution against illegal encroachments from an overbearing monarch and his evil councillors.2 During the trial of Charles I, London Presbyterians issued an Apologeticall Declaration with the express intention of distancing themselves further from the army’s actions and reaffirming their pledge to stand by the Solemn League and Covenant in the face of the unrestricted power of the sword. The trial highlights the threat of individual private actions to the traditional constitution. The removal of the King, the person, his office and his posterity would make law and parliament inoperable whereby no law can be created, nor enacted or enforced. The King is the head of the Commonweal from which all laws and liberties derived and to remove him would put all his freeborn subjects in slavery and under an unrestrained military power.

98 Corruption The King is innocent and the sin of regicide is so immense that ‘Men must create a New Name for and God a New Hell or punishment for it’.3 After the execution, a short declaration was published by the Commission of the Kirk in Scotland. It was declared that the King’s death was ‘violent’, therefore murderous and unnatural, contrary to the pledges in the Covenant. Adherence to the Covenant was the best way to ensure the stability and security of the three kingdoms, and it was for these reasons that Charles II was declared King of Britain, Ireland and France, upholding the King’s honour and his posterity. Kirk and Country was now wedged between two dangers; a King that may not take the Covenant and a Cromwellian army bent on destroying the covenanting reformation across the three kingdoms. They were hopeful that the King’s youth would incline him towards the Covenant and secure religion and a covenanted federative union across the three kingdoms and strengthen the resolve of the covenanted interest in England who suffer the ‘violence’ and ‘strange practices’ of the sectaries.4 A fuller declaration was issued, printed in both London and Edinburgh, denouncing the English army as ‘an insolent enemy [both to God and our dead Sovereign the King]’ and describing the trial and execution as an ‘abomination’. The Commission was confident that violence would be defeated through faith and patience. Oliver Cromwell and the English army had subverted the Covenant by corrupting the Reformation and the federative union by encouraging divisive motions in the English Parliament and ignoring Scottish objections to the trial and execution.5 Indeed, these failed efforts by Scottish Commissioners to resurrect some form of dialogue between England and Scotland is recounted many years later by John Row. He recalled that the King was given over to the English Parliament in 1647 on the grounds that the King should be given honour, freedom and safety. Looking back on events, Row commented that the unusual trial was dictated by the motions of a sectarian army who had set up a court full of ‘commoners’. It was not a legal but subversive court where the lower orders in society instigated by military force put their King on trial. During the trial, the Scottish Commissioners petitioned the Parliament and requested that the trial be stopped, but they were quickly referred to an English parliamentary committee convened by Sir Henry Vane and swiftly ignored. The Scottish Commissioners were seen as a security threat to the regime, and any printing of the commissioners’ requests had to be reported to the Commons first. Requests by the Scottish commissioners for access to the King during the trial were repeatedly denied. It was clear that any form of Anglo-Scottish dialogue or cooperation was non-existent, and the Scottish covenanted interest was now a confirmed enemy of the English Parliament.6

The attack on the covenanted interest in England and Ireland The execution of the King was an ungodly and unnatural crime, but it was only the beginning of the Commonwealth’s assault against the political

Corruption  99 structures of the three Stuart kingdoms. The regime was well aware of the threat posed by the patriotic accommodation between Royalists and Presbyterians. The Commonwealth specifically targeted key institutions that supported the covenanted interest across the three kingdoms. In Scotland, the regime systematically destroyed and attacked the integrated systems of local and national governance that had upheld the covenanting regime. The response of the covenanted interest across the three kingdoms to these challenges varied due to the circumstances of the covenanted interest in each kingdom. However, similar objections to conquest and political integration can be drawn upon. In February 1649, Francis Rous, self-confessed Presbyterian and member of the new Council of State, ignited controversy by publishing a pamphlet entitled ‘The Lawfulness of obeying the present government’ and argued in favour of the Engagement.7 This controversy lasted more than two years as the Commonwealth met fierce resistance from the English Presbyterian ministry that could not reconcile itself with a regime that had executed the King. Presbyterian ministers in Devon were still protesting against the Engagement as late as February 1652.8 However, not all English Presbyterian ministers had refused the Engagement, and those who had refused to subscribe expressed, at length, their willingness to seek peace with the Commonwealth. A key example which highlights the various opinions amongst Presbyterians, lay and clerical, is the north west of England, where the controversy was ignited by a pamphlet written by Lancashire Presbyterian minister Edward Gee.9 The pamphlet entitled ‘A Plea for Non-Subscribers or The Grounds and Reasons of many Ministers in Cheshire, Lancashire and the Parts adjoyning for their refusal of the late Engagement’ enflamed the Engagement controversy across England when it was published. As Ian Smart has argued, the two major objections were the suspect grounds of the Commonwealth’s power and the forswearing of the Solemn League and Covenant. Gee argued that the Commonwealth’s possession of power was illegal as the army’s seizure of power was ‘unjust’, ‘unwarranted’ and ‘oppressive.’10 There was a legal government for the three kingdoms, a government comprised of the King, Lords and Commons.11 The new form of government is ‘an invention’ and to endorse it would be to deny the Covenant pledge to protect the ancient government of kingship.12 Gee argued that people were still bound to the Covenant and could not swear to the Engagement. It was only God who could end the obligations in the Covenant, not man.13 For Gee, this was not just some meaningless debate between clergy and laity, but a battle for the souls of Presbyterian clergy and laity alike. Gee was attempting to recover the souls of those who had engaged. He also endeavoured to dissuade those who were thinking of engaging and encouraged those who had not yet engaged to maintain their stance.14 However, Presbyterian opposition to the Engagement in the North West was not as formidable as it initially appeared.

100 Corruption Adam Martindale recalled how he could not decide whether to accept the Engagement and that the printing war did not help him at all. He stated that many ministers in the area were willing to take the oath and, in his own case, he felt pressure from his congregation to do so, fearing the loss of their minister if he refused. Presbyterian opposition to the Engagement in the North West mainly came from three eminent divines: Edward Gee, Mr Harrison and Mr Holingworth.15 These divines organised a conference in Warrington to persuade ministers in their area not to take the Engagement. Martindale listened to their arguments intensely but was persuaded by the argument of Romans 13, that any government divinely ordained should be obeyed, but he was still not confident or clear about a decision. It was not until he read the pamphlet by Francis Rous, ‘Northerne Subscribers Plea’, that he was convinced and took the Engagement. However, after experiencing the religious chaos of liberty of conscience, he regretted taking the Engagement.16 Cromwell landed in Ireland in August 1649 intent on conquest and crushing the Royalist-Confederate alliance. Retrospectively, Patrick Adair commented that the garrison at Drogheda were ‘resolute’ opponents ‘in the righteous judgement of God met with a scourge from unjust hands’. Similar to Cromwell, Adair saw the garrison’s defeat as a righteous judgement of God but done by unjust hands. Soldiers fighting for the King had to be commended, but God had pronounced judgement upon them, and the defeat was a condemnation of the ungodliness of the governor of Drogheda, Sir Arthur Aston, an English Catholic who had been classed as a Papist and uncovenanted malignant by the Antrim Presbytery. The earlier Royalist defeat at Rathmines could equally be attributed to the ungodly behaviour of the Royalists, who were ‘minding their drinking, cards and dice more than their work’. Thus, Cromwell was a recognised instrument of God used to punish Aston for his wicked ways, but Cromwell and his army were also instruments of Satan sent to Ireland to test the faith of Presbyterians.17 The Ulster Presbyterian church sent Colonel Venables an official statement on the conquest when a number of the ministers were arrested for praying for the King in 1650.18 They could not recognise the ‘purged’ English Parliament’s authority in Ireland. In addition, under the terms of the Solemn League and Covenant, they could now no longer obey any laws emanating from the English Parliament, which had failed to fight against ‘malignants’ and encouraged sectarianism. Cromwell had overturned the rightful and ‘just’ settlement of the three kingdoms. This settlement had boundaries, a divinely appointed form of worship characterised by strict discipline and a wish to preserve the established privileges of the King and parliament, whereas Cromwell was bringing ‘universal toleration’ and an English government imposed by force deriving its powers from a purged House of Commons. These were ‘innovations’ which had no clear boundaries. Cromwell had overridden the natural order and was no longer constrained by what was naturally just.19

Corruption  101 By 1652, the conquest of Ireland was a certainty, but the Presbyterians in Ulster were under grave suspicion by the English Commonwealth and were tendered the Republican Engagement to ensure loyalty to the regime. In October 1652, upon receiving the summons, the Ulster Presbyterian clergy submitted official papers stating objections to the Engagement, as they could not swear loyalty to a government which had displaced the monarch and purged the House of Commons in England.20 Parliamentary commissioners, anxious to gain their loyalty, composed an alternative draft of the Engagement which was refused.21 The ministers were given six weeks to compile their case, and they consulted their brethren in Scotland, proposing that ‘[t]hey did not purpose to raise people in arms, but to live as a godly people, and to inform and prepare the people for suffering in the maintenance of the Gospel, if God called them to it’.22 Ministers in Ulster promised the government that they would live in peace but propagate the gospel according to their covenanted principles, but an answer was not given because their representative was grounded in Scotland before their next meeting with the commissioners. As a result, the commissioners recommended that two ministers should meet Charles Fleetwood to satisfy him with their proposals. These representatives explained to Fleetwood they could live in peace under the regime but could not promise loyalty and support as they still recognised Charles II as the true sovereign. Their continued loyalty to the monarch was further confirmed when an English army officer accused them of being papists to which Patrick Adair answered, ‘Sir, under your favour, it is a mistake to compare our consciences with those of Papists, for Papists’ consciences could digest to kill Protestant Kings, but so would not ours, to which our principles are the contrary’.23 This response was a gibe against an army and a regime which had executed the monarch. In 1653, the commissioners were sent out into the counties of Ireland to press the Republican Engagement.24 According to Adair, families in Carrickfergus who were members of a Presbyterian parish, together with their minister, refused to take the Engagement whereupon the government refused the minister’s liberty to go out of the town, and all were pressed under the threat of transportation to England. Regardless, the ministers remained resolute in their refusal to take the Engagement. However, the Commonwealth government reported a slightly different response from the Presbyterian laity. They stated in their letters from Dublin that most had, in fact, signed the Engagement. Many did not sign on conscientious grounds but did sign a negative oath whereby they did not pledge loyalty to the government in the form it took but just to live peacefully under the Commonwealth.25 By May 1653, commissioners began to accept the ministers’ refusal to take the Engagement due to changes in national politics rather than any growing trust between Presbyterians and the English government. Oliver Cromwell dissolved the Rump Parliament and with it the need to pledge loyalty.26 Presbyterian ministers kept the next day, Sunday, as a day of thanksgiving.27

102 Corruption

Scotland: conquest and dissolution of the Committee of Estates Approaching the Scottish border in July 1650, Oliver Cromwell justified his invasion to the Scots by publishing a declaration arguing that the English army, through God’s Providence, was bringing liberty to Scotland with the offer of friendship and peace whilst abiding by all laws of God, nations, nature and religion. He continued to argue that the regicide and the creation of the Commonwealth had been required to protect religion and liberties from a corrupt King who had rejected all proposals of peace. He stated that the Covenant between England and Scotland was dissolved in 1648 and the establishment of the Commonwealth is England’s business alone, and no other country had the right to interfere. The Kirk’s disapproval of England’s decision to change its constitution is hypocritical and unfair. In 1648–1649, Scotland overturned its own constitution when it ejected Royalist Engagers from positions of trust in order to protect Scotland’s religion and liberties. Every effort was made to avoid bloodshed between the godly of both countries, and England will liberate the Scots from their overbearing clergy. As David Stevenson comments, ‘The English sincerely saw themselves as acting generously; they were pressing on the Scots the inestimatable gift of being treated as Englishmen’.28 The Kirk replied that the army had thrown the Solemn League and Covenant aside like a worthless piece of paper and ridden roughshod over England’s constitution. The Covenant was more than legislation, as it was a means to preserve a lasting peace between England and Scotland though partnership and federative union. The army were ‘active agents of Satan’ whose actions were ‘contrary to all reason, humanity, law equity, and conscience’.29 The Scottish Kirk feared Scotland would be like England, oppressed by a minority who would curtail traditional liberties.30 The English Commonwealth had oppressed their Presbyterian brethren in Ireland and England by forcing them to make a public testimony, an Engagement, to recognise the new government and to deny the Covenant. The Kirk believed the English army was serving private ends whilst delighting in religious errors.31 The ‘Declaration’ had no legal validity, as it was written by a violent and aggressive force which had unlawfully purged parliament for the private interest of men rather than for the public good. They noted that the English justified the invasion on, firstly, Scottish interference in English politics, secondly, the breach of Covenant by the Scottish invasion of England in 1648 and, thirdly, with Scotland threatening to invade England to restore monarchy.32 Regarding the first point, Scottish interference in English politics, the Kirk asked: how can people who have just overturned the English legislature themselves accuse the Scots of disturbing the balance of the English polity? We are sure that none of the Commissioners from Scotland ever did assume or claim a vote in the Parliament of England. They emphasised they

Corruption  103 concerned themselves with matters discussed in the Anglo-Scottish committees and nothing more. To address the second point, the Kirk stated that the ‘royalist engagement of 1648, although an unlawful invasion of England, was not owned by Scotland as a whole as many in Scotland had declined to support the Royalist army. Cromwell was attacking the same government he had worked with to defeat the Royalists in 1648, and they cannot understand why the English Parliament would turn against their former allies. Thirdly, the Kirk firmly rejected Cromwell’s invitation to join the English republican experiment. The English Parliament does not need to offer Scotland freedom from oppression since Scotland is free. The English Parliament is indebted to the Scots for its own freedom because the Scottish nation had helped the English Parliament defeat Charles I and set up a reformed church. Scotland has a duty to protest against the unlawful actions of the English Parliament and has always intended to preserve the peace between the kingdoms. By proclaiming Charles II King of Britain, Ireland and France, they are restoring the monarchy to its rightful crown, but it is not an automatic declaration of intent to invade England; thus, Scotland had no need to be subjected to a pre-emptive strike33 However, after the defeat of Scottish forces at the battle of Dunbar on 3 September 1650, the more radical Covenanters began to have a different interpretation of events, believing that Cromwell’s unjust invasion was a punishment on Scotland for the Engagers’ invasion of England in 1648. These ideas brought grave concern to the majority in the church, who thought it would add weight to the English army’s arguments justifying an invasion of Scotland. The majority of the Kirk believed that Scotland had been unjustly wronged by the invasion and had a natural right of self-defence.34 After Worcester, Scotland was left open to conquest, and the English regime sought to incorporate the Scottish covenanted interest into the Commonwealth by dismantling political institutions and tendering oaths of loyalty.35 The defeat of Charles II at Worcester had a significant effect on the political structures in Scotland. The Committee of Estates lost much of its strength as John Campbell, 1st Earl of Loudoun and Lord Chancellor of Scotland, stated, ‘After dispatch of which letters and messagers immediately the sad news of the defeat of the King’s armie at Worcester came, which did so much damp and discourage as that all men almost everie wher lossed both heart and hand’.36 Thereafter, the Committee of Estates lost its remaining capacity to resist the invaders by military means. It attempted to reconvene, but as English forces were closing in, committee meetings were moved further to the north and became increasingly impossible to hold.37 The Committee adjourned to Rosneath in Argyll, but the meeting folded due to intimidation by English forces. As a result, the Committee met in the unoccupied area of Bute on 15 October 1651 and summoned a parliament to take place in November, but only a few members turned up, and the Committee of Estates was dissolved and did not meet again until 1660.38

104 Corruption However, both factions of the Kirk continued to declare against English military domination as a breach of the Covenant and against the laws of nations. The Protesters made their feelings about the conquest known to the regime in A Letter from the Protesters to L. General Cromwell in January 165239 and The Declaration or Testimonie of the Protesters in Refernce to the English Actings amongst Us published in March 1653.40 In the ‘letter’, Protesters stated that the invasion of Scotland was unjust and iniquitous because every kingdom has the right to ‘hold forth the liberty of a self disposing power in every Nation concerning their owne government, and [there was] an obligation by the Covenant upon these Nations to defend and maintaine the libertie of either’.41 They attacked the Commonwealth forces for conquering Scotland because of the ‘presumption’ and ‘fear’ of what Scotland might do to England. It is against ‘the law of equitie and righteousnesse’ to strip a country of its own capacity to defend itself. They are bewildered as to why England, a country which they had helped to defend under the Solemn League and Covenant, would be aggressive. In the wake of Worcester, the Resolutioners decided to ‘ignore’ the existence of the Republic by continuing to pray publicly for Charles II and preserved the physical symbol of monarchy by successfully smuggling the Scottish regalia and hiding it under the floorboards of a church in Kinneff Aberdeenshire.

Political integration versus acceptance: the tender of incorporation Regardless of its divisions, the Scottish Presbyterian ministry did not like the Tender of Incorporation, which was an oath designed to integrate the Scottish shires and burghs into the political framework of the Commonwealth. Robert Blair, a Resolutioner, thought Scotland would lose its own identity and therefore ‘will be as when the poor bird is embodied into the hawk that hath eaten it up’.42 The Resolutioners responded to the Tender by organising a meeting at St Andrews on the first Tuesday of April 1652 and resolved to send letters to all parts of the kingdom advising against taking the Tender.43 Ministers in Fife refused to read the summons in the pulpit.44 Wariston, a Protester, likewise and after some thought, believed that the Tender was ‘contrary to our deuty and the Lord’s will in relation to his inflicted judgement, to our prayers and His promises to delyvery out of our captivetye’.45 The Protesters, in their Declaration as to English Actings, stated that the Tender disregarded the Covenant and its principles of federative union. God would pour his wrath on the English because: He is a jealous God, a great and terrible God, that keepeth the Covenant; and his desire and command is that we should also keep the Covenant. And how dreadfull are these things which He threatened and brought upon His owne people Israell because they did not keep covenant, but dealt falslie therein!46

Corruption  105 An unpublished paper, reputedly written by Archibald Johnston of Wariston, called ‘Consideration before our own choice or consent unto the Incorporation or Engagement’, argued the incorporation could not overrule the laws of Scotland and the Covenant. Scotland was still a Covenanted nation, and the incorporation challenged ‘natural law’ because submission to another country could only take place with the free consent of the nation, consent that was denied to Scotland and contravened biblical law. Like the Resolutioners, the Protesters declared that the Tender was not consistent with an equal union between both nations as envisaged in the Covenant, and therefore, the English were usurpers and conquest was nothing but violent oppression.47 The Tender consisted of three proposals. Firstly, that Scotland should be incorporated into and made one with the Commonwealth of England, thereby acknowledging a government established in England without a king and a House of Lords. Secondly, a promise to live peaceably under the Commonwealth and giving due obedience to the authority of the English Parliament. Thirdly, that the burghs and shires offer concise ‘desires’ for bringing to the effect the said union with speed and satisfaction for Scotland. Answers were to be given by 18 March 1652. From the English point of view, they were to be an acceptance of Parliament’s ‘A Declaration of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England concerning the Settlement of Scotland’.48 Whitelocke commented that the burgh representatives were asked to sign two different ‘Tenders’: ‘one signed to appease ministers, that nothing would be done which would be prejudicial to the Covenant; the other, full and ample, to do all things conductible for the settling of the nation’.49 The English commissioners were trying to offset the influence of the Kirk by offering an alternative oath. The majority of shires and burghs did accept the Tender, but, far from deserting their Covenanting principles when signing the Tender, the majority of constituencies continued to advocate covenanting principles.50 These principles were expressed in the desires attached, the outright rejections and non-replies to the Tender expressed by a large number of constituencies.51 Many of the answers requested that the Protestant religion in Scotland should remain unaltered as laid down by the Kirk. This included Dumfriesshire, Wigtownshire, Nairnshire, Invernesshire and Buteshire.52 Argyllshire requested that the established form of worship should remain unaltered for fear of incurring God’s wrath and should be ‘for the goode of the realm and the true religion established’.53 Therefore, many constituencies were still recognising the spiritual and moral authority of the Kirk over the people of Scotland and were disagreeing with English toleration that would subordinate the Kirk to the civil sphere, thereby recognising the superiority of the Kirk’s laws and Covenants in Scotland. Desires from Edinburgh and other burghs, including Aberdeen and Dundee, show loyalty to the Covenant more clearly in their request ‘that the Protestant Religion may be established in uniformitie the whole Island by advise of the most godlie and learned men of both Nations Conforme to the Word of God’.54

106 Corruption This reaffirmed the aims of the Solemn League and Covenant. They wanted ‘godly men’ of both nations to come together to achieve these ends, resurrecting the ideal of the Westminster Assembly.55 Many of the assents and desires requested that the union be satisfactory for both kingdoms.56 Dumfriesshire and Edinburgh requested a forum where ministries of both nations could debate the ‘lawful and unlawfullness’ of toleration.57 Many shires and burghs asked to be ‘protected’ in the practice of their religion, and one constituency requested that many ‘godly consciences’ be quietened.58 Religious toleration was contrary to the Covenant, which aimed to establish Presbyterianism throughout the three kingdoms. There were also constitutional wishes. For example, Stirling, Dumfriesshire, Aberdeenshire and many others59 wanted Scotland to continue to use its own legal system, upholding the pledge in the Covenant to preserve the separate judiciaries of both kingdoms. Interestingly, Stirling suggested that the Commonwealth should have a name comprehending both nations, Great Britain, in essence ‘abolishing’ the new English Republic and continuing to recognise Stuart ambitions.60 The Burgh of Stirling feared it would incur God’s wrath if the Covenant was overturned. Scotland had suffered much misery and destruction during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and therefore, Stirling requested that ‘confiscationes, sequestrations and forfaulties proceed no farder’. Scottish prisoners should be set free, and there should be no free quarter of the English army upon the gentlemen of Scotland.61 Stirling requested to be treated as a ‘Covenanted’ ally rather than as an enemy. Glasgow and Morayshire dissented from the union.62 Glasgow believed that Scotland would lose the right to govern itself and the English government would tolerate sectaries contrary to the Covenant. Assent was also denied because full details of the union proposed by the English regime had been witheld.63 Morayshire objected to the Tender because toleration would be introduced into Scotland. It did not agree with the confiscation of estates because they had not entered England to cause injury to that nation but to protect common religion and liberties under the Covenant.64 Kirkcudbright had unanimously rejected the Tender because it did not recognise the legality of the regime and England had revoked the solemn promise to protect Scotland’s laws, estates and government, including the monarch and his posterity. Furthermore, toleration leaves the door open to heresy and superstition and does not preserve the doctrine and worship of the Kirk. Kirkcudbright argued against the confiscation of estates on the grounds that the Covenanters had been paying for the wars through their estates and the English Parliament to aid its war effort.65 Finally, Kirkcudbright was bound not to desert the Covenant under any circumstances.66 Some constituencies wanted to change their mind about assenting to the Tender, and there were others who were forced to change their dissents to assents. Dumbarton wanted to change its mind about assenting to the union but was forbidden from doing so by the Commonwealth. Edinburgh refused to assent to

Corruption  107 the Tender, resulting in the army removing Sir James Stewart, leader of the opposition in the burgh, and replacing him and his supporters with a compliant elite.67 Glasgow, Morayshire and Kirkcudbright were all forced to change their dissents to assents.68 Some constituencies, such as Haddington, North Berwick and Dunbar, did not offer any advice to the English on the incorporative union.69 Some gave no answer at all. Absence can perhaps also be seen as a delaying tactic in the hope that the authorities would not pursue an answer. It is interesting to note that out of all the assents to the Tender, the assents of Orkney and Shetland are the only ones that pledged to encourage the recognition of the English Parliament’s authority in their community.70

Gillespie and the universities In order to assert its authority, the Commonwealth had to seek out and rely upon small, loyal groups within the burghs and the universities to do the regime’s bidding. At a national level, offices and exemptions from confiscation were given to a handpicked elite to smooth the acceptance of the Union. The most notable example of the transition of authority within a Scottish context took place in the Burgh of Glasgow as the regime became increasingly dependent upon Patrick Gillespie. Initial attempts in April and October 1651 to win the hearts and minds of Glasgow failed.71 Requests towards the upkeep of English forces were met with stony silence, and the burgh gave substantial money and resources to the King instead.72 Cromwell invited the ministers to discuss their opinions with him in a private conference. James Guthrie and Patrick Gillespie, both leading members of the Protester faction from the West, led the Presbyterian charge and argued that the English invasion was a breach of the Covenant and concluded they could be ‘satisfied in their own judgements’.73 However, Gillespie and his Protester faction began to use the English occupation to their own advantage. As Cromwell removed his troops from Glasgow, the Hamilton garrison demanded that the town pay cess. If Glasgow did not pay, the garrison threatened to plunder the city. In response, the magistrates left the town, but some burgesses, recognising the danger of an English army on their doorstep, created a committee and organised the payment of cess. The Provost had the committee leader arrested for breach of due process, but the ministers advised that with the English still in the town, the magistrates should keep a low profile. Despite this, the burgesses were severely punished by the magistrates for usurping their authority in their absence. As the Provost, Baillie and the council emerged from the church where the hearing had taken place, they were greeted by an assembled group of troops aligned with the Western Association who had been forewarned of the burgesses’ predicament. The Provost reasserted his authority by demanding the arrest of the five young men in question but, mocking him, they stated that as burgesses, they could not be arrested. This

108 Corruption resulted in an altercation which had to be broken up by English troops. Robert Baillie declared the altercations were due to the actions of Patrick Gillespie.74 A minority, seemingly upon the advice of Gillespie, had taken a different approach, giving Gillespie prestige and standing in direct competition with the burgh itself. The rise of Patrick Gillespie caused concern within the town’s elite because he quickly gained a favourable reputation amongst the small independent landowners of the town after his appointment in 1647 and, by 1651, according to Baillie, Gillespie could ‘carie what he pleased’.75 Gillespie, Sir John Chiesly and three Glasgow burgesses would convene their own meetings away from the established institutions within the Burgh. By April 1651, Gillespie was the head of a closed group that challenged established networks in the Burgh. This group consisted of James Naismith, John Neary, Gabriel Maxwell, Alexander Dunlop, Alexander Mowatt and John Cairstairs (who was nominated by Gillespie for his charge the previous year).76 Indeed, after the erection of a separate committee to pay the English cess, Gillespie became more vocal in his preaching against the King and after the defeat of Charles II at Worcester Gillespie, vindicated by events, drew new confidence and strength. It is clear that Gillespie had succeeded in building his own close group of supporters in the town.77 The English government then chose to confer its authority on this man, setting a course for continued resistance, rebellion and negotiation. In January 1653, the University of Glasgow received a letter from the English regime appointing Patrick Gillespie as Principal of the University. Robert Baillie was incensed. ‘The matter was totally new, a Principal in part, not fully for a time . . . a Principal upon no invitation for the College but some private men, after a Faculty had judicially refused all invitation. Such things were great novelties’.78 Indeed, arguably, ‘novelties’ imposed on the university highlighted that the English Republic was dependent on the private interest of individuals for governance, which contrasted sharply with the localised nature of the Covenanters’ dealings with the Scottish universities in 1641. The English Commonwealth looked towards its recent actions in Oxford and Cambridge for its inspiration, where the Commonwealth had aimed to establish its presence over the English universities to eject any adverse covenanting influence. To ensure loyalty, the regime proposed state maintenance for staff at Oxford and Cambridge after swearing to the Republican Engagement.79 On 12 October 1649, the Engagement was extended to staff and students at Cambridge and Oxford universities.80 The Engagement did have an impact on some colleges due to English suspicion of the Scottish ‘Covenanted interest’. In 1650 a Scotsman, Thomas Young, was ousted from his mastership at Jesus College, Cambridge, where he was under suspicion, as were other Scottish Presbyterians in England.81 The English Commonwealth replaced Thomas Young with Dr John Worthington, who was friendly with English Presbyterians in Manchester, Cheshire and Staffordshire.82 Perhaps this reflects the mistrust the English government had of Scots during the military campaign

Corruption  109 of Charles II, but also the success in dividing some English Presbyterians from accommodation. However, some English Presbyterians were not to be trusted. At Peterhouse, James Ball, Gabriel Major and Howard Beecher, who were all known to have accepted their positions under the Covenant, were dismissed. Peterhouse’s president, London Presbyterian Lazarus Seaman, voluntarily left his position between March 1650 and July 1652 and appointed a replacement until he could return, thereby avoiding being publicly ousted by the government. At Corpus Christi College, religious Presbyterians Johnson, Kennet and Fairfax were expelled, and in response, they compiled a declaration pledging to uphold the Solemn League and Covenant.83 William Spurstowe, a member of St Catherine’s, gave up his post on account of his genuine Presbyterian convictions. Spurstowe went into retirement and lived in Hackney in obscurity throughout the 1650s.84 This had a significant impact on the college, as it fell into disarray, with only eight matriculations taking place that year, the lowest since the 1590s.85 Oxford went through two visitations between 1649 and 1652, one by the authority of the Rump Parliament and the other by its new chancellor, Oliver Cromwell.86 During these visitations the government pressed the Engagement. According to Thomas Hill, ‘they assembled a convocation, sent a modest petition declining the thing in terminus, only professing to live peacefully’ but would not recognise the government as it was established: without a King or the House of Lords.87 This stance was taken due to loyalty to the statutes of the university, not the Covenant.88 The Register of the Visitors of the University of Oxford shows that ejections were not as a result of loyalty to the Solemn League and Covenant but for general misdemeanours classed as ‘malignancy’, suggesting that Royalism still predominated.89 Amongst the Oxford petitions, there was a petition in 1649 by William Hamilton, a Scot, and fellow of All Souls College. He makes no direct reference to the Solemn League and Covenant or the Engagement, but is keen to remain a fellow and states ‘[t]hat I will be true and faithfull to the publicke will of England’. This passive attitude in Oxford is reflected in Anthony Wood’s History of the University, which seems to have preserved the presence of a Presbyterian contingent in the university since Presbyterian religious meetings took place in Corpus Christi College under Dr Staunton and in the house of Dr Christopher Rogers at New Inn Lane during the 1650s.90

Public attacks and private defences: Presbyterians, sectaries, print and theatrical exchange The New Model Army brought theatrical lay preaching to Ireland and Scotland in the early 1650s. Presbyterian ministers across the kingdoms responded by emphasising the value of an ordained and trained ministry. Underpinning all responses was an assurance that Presbyterian Church government had a divinely warranted presence in the three kingdoms. Sectaries

110 Corruption were irreligious and destructive, contrary to the Protestant Reformed faith. In their defences, the Presbyterian ministry in the three kingdoms took inspiration from each other. The Ulster Necessary Representation took inspiration from both the London Provincial Assembly and the commission of the Kirk in Edinburgh for their arguments. There was a clear sense of duty to uphold religious ordinances which underpinned law and order in society. English sectaries were Covenant breakers whom, under a cloak of deception, preached religion and liberty and ‘universall toleration’ but threatened the Christian religion and social stability. The Ulster Presbyterians urged families and ministers to gather together to uphold church ordinances through conventicles and private religious meetings within their own homes.91 The London Provincial Assembly’s A Vindication of the PresbyteriallGovernment, and Ministry was written in direct response to attacks on a trained, educated and ordained ministry. Drawing on a biblical parallel of the Jews being led out of Egypt and the subsequent rebellion by the City of Jerusalem, Presbyterians saw themselves within a similar cycle of deliverance and destruction. They argued that the traditional office of the ministry draws upon descent from Christ’s Apostles sanctioned by Roman Emperors which had existed through time and was sanctioned by the English Parliament. They hoped the ministry would be re-established according to the Solemn League and Covenant.92 They appealed to everyone to remain steadfast in the face of the sectaries, urging ministers to remain steadfast in the knowledge and wisdom and to act with humility and quietness. Congregations were encouraged to walk in soundness of judgement, and they advised that separation was only valid if the current church was heretical and idolatrous, which it was not.93 The ministers expressed their disappointment at Parliament with its failure to firmly establish an outward form of church government which, in their opinion, had greatly contributed to the rise of the sectaries. Presbyterianism had been around since the days of Elizabeth I and could be seen in other European countries, such as France, the Netherlands and the city of Geneva, and therefore followed the examples of the best reformed churches. Scripture also endorsed Presbyterianism, highlighting synods authority over congregations.94 Robert Baillie sought to explain the emergence of sectaries in 1652 and framed his argument around longterm theological issues. The book A Scotch Antidote was published in London and was designed as a temporary solution until an official work would be published to inform and warn people of current controversies. Baillie argued that a continuing belief in free will and universal salvation rather than a godly elect has opened England to heresy under the guise of religious liberty.95 The Protesters took a different approach, choosing to write a letter directly to Cromwell. They argued that England and Scotland had been blessed by God with a mutual Covenant and Protestant Reformation, and by allowing the sectaries to prevail, it was destroying the Reformation in all three kingdoms.96

Corruption  111 At the ground level, the Presbyterian ministry in all three kingdoms was locked in theatrical exchanges with sectaries. In 1649, two ministers, James Ker and Jeremiah O’Quinn, refused to read the Antrim presbytery’s A Necessary Representation. The presbytery waited patiently for the ministers to repent their sins, but it was not forthcoming, and the Church suspended them from their posts. Ker and O’Quinn went to the English commissioners and complained about the severity of the presbytery’s proceedings. In response, the Antrim presbytery sought approval for the suspension of these ministers from the Commission of the Kirk in Scotland. Ker and O’Quinn had joined with a group of sectaries led by Timothy Taylor, an Independent minister with close links to the army. In December 1651, encouraged by Ker and O’Quinn, Taylor wrote a letter to the Antrim presbytery requesting a conference with its ministers. The ministers did agree to a conference with Taylor and another sectary of the army, Mr Weeks, and this took place in Antrim in March 1652. The Presbyterians believed it would be a private conference, but it was a public debate, a theatrical show for the benefit of the Independents. According to his own account, Adair agreed to step forward and defend Presbyterian Church government. Adair denounced Taylor and Weeks, duping them into a public conference, and although he did answer a few of their points, in his opinion the Presbyterians won a small victory as Taylor and Weeks did not know how to respond.97 Adam Martindale, like his brethren in Ulster, was invited to a conference with local Independents at Samuel Eaton’s church in Dukinfeild, Cheshire. Martindale accepted the initial invitation as he felt the elders had false notions, believing they were gifted persons, but they were really people without a true calling who falsely felt guided to preach by the Holy Spirit.98 However, on reflection, he chose to exchange letters and decided the best course of action was to write and publish a pamphlet which outlined traditional Christian beliefs through a series of questions and answers. In the first months of 1653, he composed a pamphlet in entitled An Antidote against the poyson of the times for those most likely to be persuaded by the sectaries: those too poor to buy, too busy to read and those who could not understand larger tracts.99 By avoiding direct confrontation, he was following the advice of the London Provincial Assembly and acting with humility.100

The demise of the Westminster assembly, state control and the emergence of classical associations On 7 August 1649, the Presbyterian Church settlement of England came within one vote of being established by the Rump Parliament. It was defeated over a concern for tender consciences.101 No national synod was ever created for Presbyterians in England, and Westminster Assembly had been reduced to a body performing ministerial ordinations outwith the standards of ‘covenanted uniformity’.102 A surviving transcription of a certificate from this time does not mention the 1646 ordinance, and the absence of a

112 Corruption scribe from the London Classis system suggests they were no longer cooperating with the Assembly.103 In direct contrast, a surviving ordination certificate issued directly from the first London Classis at same time highlights that the candidate had the full backing of the Classis and was ordained according to legislation passed by the Long Parliament.104 The numbers of Presbyterians influencing the Assembly had waned quite considerably, and the only known active Presbyterian proceeding over affairs was the Oxford Presbyterian Dr Edmund Staunton.105 In the 113 sessions which took place after 1649, Dr Staunton participated in only two, and unsurprisingly, the Independents now fully dominated proceedings and ordinations.106 The Provincial Assembly of London was now the advisory body for Presbyterians throughout England, taking upon itself the principal duties of the Westminster Assembly by defining and defending Presbyterian Church government in England.107 The Scottish Kirk was not oblivious to events in London. In March 1653, in their ‘Declaration on English Actings’, the Protesters declared that the Westminister Assembly, where they did from ‘the word of the Lord represent unto the honourable Houses a modell of all these things which wer more fullie approven in this Nation’, was: [A] sad disapointment . . . and that by the hands of those with whom wee tooke sweet councell and with whom we went to the House of God together, and for whom (the Lord knowes) in simplicite of our hearts, we took our lives in our hands against their and our enemies, and from whom (through even then we were not altogether ignorant of the opinions of some, and from the fear of the growth of them, tooke care to provyde against it in the Covenant).108 Presbyterian Church government was a divine ordinance and warned the English that ‘the overturning of which cannot but provock the Lord and be prejudicall to religion’.109 The Resolutioners renewed the commissions for establishing ‘the work of uniformity in all these United Kingdomes’ in August 1652.110 Ruling elders were given the power to preserve religion in Scotland and Ireland and to pursue the uniformity of religion in the ‘United Kingdomes’ and wished to send commissioners into England to enact the ‘Treaty of Uniformity’.111 In Ireland and England, the offer of State payments to ministers, if accepted, conflicted with the Presbyterian commitment to uphold the Solemn League and Covenant because in order to receive maintenance, ministers in England and Ireland had to take the Engagement. In June 1650, because of their open opposition to the Engagement, ministers in Ulster were ordered to be arrested. Many fled to Scotland, thereby avoiding the issue of the Engagement, and took up charges there, and the few ministers who remained in Ulster continued to resist the Engagement. From the little evidence we have, the impact upon the Presbyterian ministry was tremendous. Ministers were stripped of their charges in parishes, thereby losing a

Corruption  113 designated place to preach, and they were forced to travel. They gave sermons in fields, barns or glens, grabbing every opportunity to publicly show their suffering and their loyalty to the rightful King.112 The only Ulster Presbyterian kirk session record extant for the period, Templepatrick, shows a break in activities between July 1650 and May 1652. In the margin of an empty page it states, ‘This Blanke was the tyme of our ministers trible being pursued by Ordours fro Cromwell’s Army’; these orders meant that the minister was ‘debarred from publick preaching’.113 The loyalty of Ulster Presbyterians to Charles II and their subsequent refusal of the Engagement meant that they were not offered maintenance from the Commonwealth prior to 1653. An order given to the Commissioners of the Revenue in Ulster stated that ‘no minister in the province shall be permitted to enjoy any benefit of tithes, or maintenance of the State, unless he take the Engagement’. Indeed, this is confirmed when Ulster Presbyterian names are absent from a list of ministers who received State payments in Ireland during the period of the Rump.114 In England, the Engagement was used to expel ‘security threats’ to the new regime. Scottish ministers living in County Durham were ejected from their livings due to their suspected loyalty to Charles II. Robert Constantine, a Scottish Presbyterian member of the Manchester classis, was ejected in October 1650.115 This disrupted religious formalities for Constantine who did not, or was unable to, participate in the Classis during that period. His parish of Oldham was without a clerical representative for the period of the Rump Parliament.116 The relationship between the Engagement, State payments and English Presbyterians was not as straightforward as Ireland. However, it would appear that the majority of English Presbyterians continued to depend on tithes and did not receive State augmentations. In a sample survey which included ministers of the fourth Shropshire Classis, the Manchester Classis, the Wirksworth Classis in Derbyshire and known Presbyterian ministers in Cheshire, only three ministers, Thomas Paget and Mr John Bryan of the Shropshire Classis and Mr Heyricke from the Manchester Classis, received State augmentations.117 The low numbers that received State payments cannot be simply attributed to a refusal to take the Engagement, as Martindale had accepted the Engagement but had not asked for, nor received, a State augmentation. In June 1652, the Rump Parliament declared it would eject ministers who were ‘scandalous’ in their lives and conversation and were enemies of the Commonwealth in Scotland. The government stated they would plant whom they chose in vacant livings and intervene in disputes regarding maintenance.118 One notable episode where this legislation did have an impact was a Patrick Gillespie-orchestrated dispute between Protesters and Resolutioners in the parish of Lenzie, where Protesters procured a warrant from the English to stop the Resolutioners from planting their own candidate. The English warned Mr James, the Resolutioner candidate, not to preach in the church and that heavy penalties would be given to people who listened

114 Corruption to him. Robert Baillie lamented, ‘What here shall be done? Shall our brother preach suffering sinning and imprisonment?’119 Baillie feared that the Protesters and the English were going to destroy the liberties of the Kirk by prohibiting the Resolutioner ministers to meet.120 Other Protesters complained: When some men deposed from the Ministrie in a just and orderly way by the lawful assemblies of this Kirk for grosse offences, have been authorised to lift their maintenance, and countenanced to preach; and, altho’ upon application this may be redressed, yet it seems to tend towards an imediat meddling in matters of the Jurisdiction in the House of God, and to subordinat the Assemblies of this Kirk to the Present Power.121 It was feared by all that with English assistance Gillespie and his Protesters could have undue influence on the Kirk. In response to the Rump Parliament failing to establish any outward form of church discipline in England, ‘associations’ began to emerge. These associations were committed groups of ministers bound by a written code of conduct to uphold basic standards of worship and discipline. However, Presbyterian or Classical associations differed greatly from the famous associations set up by Richard Baxter. Baxter’s associations followed the Christian Concord, an agreement of the Worcestershire association. The Worcestershire association drew upon representatives from various congregations of differing forms of worship in contrast to a Presbyterian hierarchical structure of national and provincial synods and classes promoting Reformed worship following the example of the Directory.122 Before a member of a particular church could join the Worcestershire association, they had to take an oath: I do consent to be a member of the particular Church of Christ at______ whereof_____Teacher and Overseer and so submit to ____ Teaching and Ministeriall Guidance and Oversight, according to God’s word and to hold communion with that Publick Worshopping of God and to submitt to the Brotherly admonition of fellow-members and so we may be built up in the Knowledge and Holiness and may the better maintain our obedience to Christ and the welfare of Society, and hereby may please and Glorfie God.123 This oath did not aim to uphold Presbyterian Church government and the Solemn League and Covenant but sought to bring together ministers of different judgements to swear to basic standard Reformed Christian principals to preserve the fabric of society. Classical Presbyterians were not theoretically inhibited from joining the association and called upon Presbyterians, alongside other Protestant groups, to join the association.124 It is clear that Baxter had received queries from Classical Presbyterians about his associations, and he answered any objections they may have. The first objection

Corruption  115 was that by joining the association, English Presbyterians were being asked to desert the resolutions and work of the Westminster Assembly. Baxter assured Presbyterians that their fear was unfounded because the aim of the association was not to dispel the beliefs of any party but to uphold shared principles held by all parties, and he continued to argue that Presbyterian Church government does not have any supporters in England and was never sanctioned by the English Parliament. The second objection that his association is not a form of Classical Presbyterianism. Baxter answered again that Presbyterianism did not have support in England and invites Presbyterians to unite with the association.125 Baxter believed that Presbyterians were the ‘forwardest men to our Union and Association, of any others here’.126 Before publishing his ‘Christian Concord’, Baxter had established relations with various English Presbyterians, most notably Francis Tallents, member of the fourth Shropshire Classis,127 and sought advice for his ideas from London Presbyterians such as Richard Vines and Thomas Gattaker.128 In fact, Richard Vines had written to Baxter before March 1652 on Baxter’s ideas of accommodation. Vines stated that ‘[t]he Accommodation you speak of is a Great and Good work’, as it would heal discord and unite moderate men against the perceived religious anarchy of the times, but disagreeing with Baxter, Vines believed that in order to heal divisions, a particular form of church government should be set down and advised Baxter to follow the methods of the Westminster Assembly as legislation came from a House of Commons before it was purged by the army.129 Presbyterian participation was not forthcoming, and this instigated the founding of the Worcestershire association.130 In Jus Divinum: Or the Divine Right of the Gospel Ministry published in 1654, the London Provincial Assembly agrees with accommodation, but only if the true position of the Presbyter is acknowledged.131 Cheshire Presbyterians set up a classical association in October 1653. Unfortunately, no records of this association exist, and we are dependent on the autobiographies of Henry Newcome and Adam Martindale. The purpose of this association was not to unite various forms of worship but to provide a forum for English Presbyterians providing ‘mutual help in the managing of our work’.132 Adam Martindale was present when the classical association was formed and was quickly welcomed into the fold, taking comfort from the assistance he was given. It was a success in his eyes because the meetings were strictly about ‘Classical Businesse’,133 and this represented an ad hoc extension of the Presbyterian classical system established in that area because the association did not have the power of inspection over congregations but only advised in a brotherly way about their improvement.134 Despite connections with Baxter there seems to be no attempt by Presbyterians in Shropshire to set up a ‘classical association’.135 With very little evidence available, it would be hard to suggest why Presbyterians in Cheshire would be willing to set up classical associations but perhaps, as Newcome states, that ‘many deried our design as unfeasible and unseasonable’.136 It may have been that many of their brethren did not set

116 Corruption up associations because they felt they would not succeed. Despite this, a ‘classical’ example was set for other English Presbyterians to follow, and in 1654, following the example of the Cheshire Association, a series of regular classical association meetings was set up in Warwickshire known as the Kenilworth Classis.137

Acknowledgments Parts of this chapter were originally published as Kirsteen M. MacKenzie, ‘Loyalty to King or Covenant Retained: Presbyterians in the Three Nations and the English Commonwealth 1650–1653’ in Shane Alcobia Murphy et al eds., Beyond the Anchoring Grounds: More Crosscurrents in Irish and Scottish Studies (Belfast, 2005) pp. 168–174. Cló Ollscoil na Banríona (Queen’s University Press), and as Kirsteen M. MacKenzie, (2016), ‘A contested space: demonstrative action and the politics of transitional authority in Glasgow 1650–1653’ in L Dean, K Buchannan & M Penman (eds), Medieval and Early Modern Representations of Authority in Scotland, England and Ireland. pp. 68–82. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Notes 1 Elliot Vernon, ‘The Quarell of the Covenant: The London Presbyterians and the Regicide’ in Jason Peacey ed., The Regicides and the Execution of Charles I (London, 2001) 202–224. 2 A Serious and Faithfull Representation of the Judgements of the Ministers of the Gospell Within the Province of London (London, 1649) 2–16; Vernon, ‘Quarrel of the Covenant’ 202, 214–219. 3 Apologeticall Declaration of the Conscientious Presbyterians of the Province of London (London, 1649) 1–8; Vernon, ‘Quarrel of the Covenant’ 206–209. 4 Commission of the Kirk, Declaration of the Commissioners of the General Assembly (Edinburgh, 1649) 1. 5 Commissioners of the General Assembly of Scotland, A Declaration From the Commissioners of the Generall Assemblie of the Kingdom of Scotland (London, 1648) 1–6. 6 Thomas McCrie ed., The Life of Robert Blair, Minister of St Andrews, Containing His Autobiography From 1593 to 1636 With a Supplement to His Life and Continuation of the Times Until 1680 (Edinburgh, 1858) 104–109; Commons Journal Volume 6 122–123. 7 J.M Wallace, ‘The Engagement Controversy 1649–1652: An Annotated List of Pamphlets’ Bulletin of New York City Library Volume 68 (1964) 384–405. 8 Bulstrode Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs From the Beginning of the Reign of Charles the First to the Happy Restoration of King Charles the Second (Oxford, 1853) III 391. 9 Ian Micheal Smart, ‘Edward Gee and the Matter of Authority’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History Volume 27 (1976) 115. 10 E Gee, A Plea for Non-Subscribers or the Grounds and Reasons of Many Ministers in Cheshire, Lancashire and the Parts Adjoyning for Their Refusal of the Late Engagement’ (London, 1650) 11–12. 11 Gee, A Plea for Non-Subscribers 20.

Corruption  117 12 Gee, A Plea for Non-Subscribers 27–31. 13 Gee, A Plea for Non-Subscribers 41–43. 14 Gee, A Plea for Non-Subscribers 2. 15 Richard Parkinson ed., The Life of Adam Martindale, Written by Himself (Manchester, 1845) 89–91. 16 Parkinson, Life of Adam Martindale 98–100. 17 Kirsteen M MacKenzie, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms’ in Patrick Little ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (London, 2008) 155–156. 18 William Killen ed., A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866) 179–181; Robert Armstrong, Andrew R Holmes and Scott Spurlock eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland: Two Seventeenth Century Narratives (Belfast, 2016) 193–221. 19 MacKenzie, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant’ 156. 20 St John Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 1647–1661 (Oxford, 1921) 79. 21 Killen ed., A True Narrative 193; Armstrong, Holmes and Spurlock ed., Presbyterian History in Ireland 193–194. 22 Killen ed., A True Narrative 194; Armstrong, Holmes and Spurlock ed., Presbyterian History in Ireland 194. 23 Killen ed., A True Narrative 195; Armstrong, Holmes and Spurlock ed., Presbyterian History in Ireland 195. 24 Killen ed., A True Narrative 197–198; Armstrong, Holmes and Spurlock ed., Presbyterian History in Ireland 197–198. 25 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 79. 26 Killen ed., A True Narrative 198–200. 27 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 80. 28 David Stevenson, ‘Cromwell, Scotland and Ireland’ in John Morrill ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London, 1990) 149–165. 29 McCrie ed., The Life of Mr Robert Blair 213–216; Alexander F Mitchell and James Christie eds., The Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland holden in Edinburgh the years 1650 to 1652 (Edinburgh, 1896) 155–195. 30 Mitchell and Christie eds., Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 420–421. 31 Mitchell and Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies 426–435. 32 Mitchell and Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies 447–460. 33 Mitchell and Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies 447–460; David Hay-Fleming ed., Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston Volume II 1650–1654 (Edinburgh, 1919) 9–10, 48–50; 34 Mitchell and Christie eds., Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies 20–23, 99–100, 125, 159, 164, 203–214, 217, 302. 35 Mitchell and Christie eds., Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies 205. 36 Charles Harding Firth, Scotland and the Commonwealth: Letters and Papers Relating to the Military Government of Scotland From August 1651 to December 1653 (Edinburgh, 1895) 25. 37 David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter Revolution 1644–1651 (Edinburgh, 1977) 209. 38 Stevenson, Revolution and Counter Revolution 209. 39 W Stephen ed. Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh and some other brethren of the ministry (Edinburgh, 1921) I 1–12.

118 Corruption 40 Stephen, Register of Consultations 13–36. 41 Stephen, Register of Consultations 6. 42 McCrie, Life of Mr Robert Blair 291–292. 43 McCrie, Life of Mr Robert Blair 294–295. 44 Whitelocke, Memorials III 394. 45 David Hay Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 1650–1654 (Edinburgh, 1919) 171. 46 Stephen, Register of Consultations 33. 47 National Library of Scotland, Wodrow Folio XXX, No 22 ‘Considerations before our choice or consent unto the Incorporation’ fos 61–79. 48 Frances D Dow, Cromwellian Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979) 36–37. 49 Whitelocke, Memorials III 397. 50 Mercurius Politicus 19 March – 25 March 1652 1476. 51 Dow, Cromwellian Scotland 43. 52 Charles Sandford Terry ed., The Cromwellian Union (Edinburgh, 1902) 37–38, 53–55, 60–61, 70, 107 128–129,159–163. 53 Inverary Papers, Duke of Argyll, mss transcripts, Bundle 13/17 L, Commission of Archibald Campbell of Drumsymie From the Gentlemen of the Schrye, Inverary 19 January 1652. 54 Terry, Cromwellian Union 53–55. 55 Dow, Cromwellian Scotland 4. 56 Terry, Cromwellian Union 31–55, 73. 57 Terry, Cromwellian Union 31–55, 70. 58 Terry, Cromwellian Union 19, 31–55, 148–149. 59 Terry, Cromwellian Union 31–43, 78–80, 60 Terry, Cromwellian Union 78–80. 61 Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on Various Collections (London, 1901–1914) V 154–156; Robert Renwick ed., Extracts From the Royal Burgh of Stirling A.D. 1519–1666 (Scottish Burgh Records Society; Glasgow, 1887) 200–201. 62 Terry, Cromwellian Union 34–35, 112–115, 161–162. 63 Terry, Cromwellian Union 34–35, 116–118. 64 Terry, Cromwellian Union 112–115, 162–163. 65 Terry, Cromwellian Union 118–120. 66 Terry, Cromwellian Union 118–120; C.M Armet and John, IV, Marquis of Bute, K.T. eds., Kirkcudbright Town Council Records 1606–1658 (Edinburgh, 1958) 915–916. 67 Dow, Cromwellian Scotland 54. 68 Terry, Cromwellian Union 34–35, 116–118, 112–120. 69 Terry, Cromwellian Union 19–35, 86–95, 135–166. 70 Terry, Cromwellian Union 122–123; Dow, Cromwellian Scotland 44. 71 Laing ed., A Diary of Public Transactions 30–31; Laing ed., Letters and Journals III.119–120. 72 Mary Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1650; J D Marwick ed., Extracts From the Records of the Burgh of Glasgow 1630–1662 (Edinburgh, 1881) 197. 73 The Faithfull Scout 2 May – 9 May 1651 154; Mercurius Politicus 1 May – 9 May 1651 773, 779. 74 David Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1842) III .161–165. 75 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie 142; Marwick, Extracts From the Burgh of Glasgow, 126, 135.

Corruption  119 76 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 115–143, 186. 77 Hay Fleming, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 108–109, 141–142; Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, III 151, 170. 78 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie 213. 79 Charles Harding Firth and Robert S. Rait, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (London, 1911) II 145, 355–357. 80 Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1649–1650 339. 81 Arthur Gray and Frederick Brittain, A History of Jesus College Cambridge (London, 1960) 83–84. 82 J Crosley ed., The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington I (Manchester, 1847) 36, 41–42, 49. 83 Cambridge University, Peterhouse, Journal of Lazarus Seaman (forward) fos 47, 50, 51, (reverse) fos 16–25; James E Mullinger, The University of Cambridge from the Election to the Chancellorship in 1626 to the decline of the Platonist movement (Cambridge, 1911) 375–377. 84 Mullinger, The University of Cambridge 380. 85 H.C Porter, ‘Catherine Hall and the Reformation 1500–1650’ in E.E Rich ed., St Catherine’s College, Cambridge 1473–1973 (Cambridge, 1973) 103–104. 86 B Worden, ‘Cromwellian Oxford’ in N Tyacke ed., The History of the University of Oxford IV Seventeenth Century Oxford (Oxford, 1997) 736–740. 87 Worden, ‘Cromwellian Oxford’ 741; Historical Manuscripts Comission, Eighth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London, 1887) part II ‘MSS of His Grace the Duke of Manchester’ 63–64; Cambridge University Library, Add 4409, Oxford University petitions 1649 fos 1–4. 88 Anon, The Case of the University of Oxford (1652) 1–2. 89 Montagu Burrows ed., The Register of the Visitors of the University of Oxford From AD 1647-AD 1658 (London, 1881) 268–356; Elizabethane Boran, ‘Malignancy and Reform of the University of Oxford in the Mid Seventeenth Century’ History of the Universities Volume XVII (2001–2002) 19–46. 90 Antony Wood, The History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford II (Oxford, 1752) 619–661; Cambridge University Library Add 4409 Oxford University petitions 1649 fo 5. 91 A Necessary Examination of a Dangerous Design and Practice against the Interest and the Soveraigty of the Nation and the Commonwealth of England, by the Presbytery of Belfast in the Province of Ulster in Ireland (London, 1649) 1–22. 92 London Provincial Assembly, A Vindication of the Presbyteriall Government and Ministry Introduction, 67. 93 London Provincial Assembly, A Vindication of the Presbyteriall Government and Ministry 68–140. 94 London Provincial Assembly, A Vindication of Presbyteriall Government and Ministry 1–68. 95 Robert Baillie, A Scotch Antidote Against the English Infection of Arminanism (London, 1652).1–28. 96 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 3–4; New College, Edinburgh, Myl, Collections of Ecclesiastical affairs 1645–1705 fos 106–111. 97 Killen ed., A True Narrative 255. 98 Parkinson, Life of Adam Martindale 105–107. 99 A Martindale, An Antidote Against the Poyson of the Times (Manchester, 1653) 8. 100 Martindale, An Antidote Against the Poyson of the Times 9–30. 101 Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1973) 121; Whitelocke, Memorials III 82.

120 Corruption 102 Alexander F Mitchell and John Struthers eds., Minutes of the Sessions of th Westminster Assembly of Divines while engaged in preparing for their Directory of Church Government, Confession of Faith and Catechisms (London, 1874) 538–540. 103 New College, Edinburgh, WES, 1.1–5 ‘Minutes of the Sessions of the Assembly of Divines’ Volume III Part II fos 367–382b. 104 Bodleian Library, Oxford. Tanner 52 (4) Letter of orders granted by the Classical Presbytery within the City of London to Simon Patrick, fellow of Queens College, Cambridge; April 8 1653 fo 1. 105 New College, WES, 1.1–5 Assembly of Divines Volume III Part II fos 361–382b. 106 New College, WES 1.1–5 Assembly of Divines fos 374–375. 107 Claire Cross, ‘The Church in England 1646–1660’ in Gerald Edward Alymer ed., The Interregnum: A Quest for a Settlement 1646–1660 (London, 1971) 109–110. 108 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 17. 109 Stephen, Register of Consultations 22. 110 Christie and Mitchell eds., Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies 519. 111 Christie and Mitchell eds., Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies 520. 112 Killen ed., A True Narrative 180–181. 113 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, CR 4/12, Templepatrick Kirk Session Record fos 74–77. 114 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/ 1759/2A/5, Notes Relating to Ministers of the Gospel’ fos 82–90. 115 Matthews, Calamy Revised 131; Bodleian Library, Oxford., Rawlinson, A 26 (51), An abstract of such ministers as were ejected by the late commissioners for propagating the gospel, sitting at Newcastle, from June 5 A.D 1650, to April 1 1653 in the County of Durham, as also ye cause and time of their ejectment fos 432–434. 116 William A Shaw, Minutes of the Manchester Presbyterian Classis (Manchester, 1890) II 150–193, 85–148. 117 Lambeth Palace Library, Comm Va., Volume I-12, Records of the Commonwealth, Augmentation Order Books Volume III 297, 215; Lambeth Palace Library, Comm va., Records of the Commonwealth Augmentation Order Books Volume V fo 266. 118 Firth, Scotland and the Commonwealth 44–45. 119 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 216. 120 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 216. 121 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 3. 122 Richard Baxter, Christian Concord: Or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors and Churches or Worcestershire (1653) 4–5. 123 Baxter, Christian Concord 21. 124 Baxter, Christian Concord 27–30. 125 Baxter, Christian Concord 59. 126 Baxter, Christian Concord 62. 127 N.H Keeble and G.F Nuttall eds., Calendar of Correspondence of Richard Baxter (Oxford, 1991) 78–79; Barbara Coulton, ‘The Fourth Shropshire Classis 1647–62’ Shropshire History and Archeology Volume 73 (1998)’ 35, 37. 128 Keeble and Nuttall, Correspondence of Richard Baxter 102–116. 129 Richard Baxter, Reliquiae Baxteriane (London, 1696) 147. 130 Baxter, Reliquiae Baxeriane 148. 131 London Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici: Or the Divine Right of the Gospel Ministry (London, 1654), the Epistle to the Reader.

Corruption  121 132 Richard Parkinson ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852) I 46. 133 Parkinson, Life of Adam Martindale 112. 134 Parkinson, Life of Adam Martindale 112. 135 Coulton, ’Fourth Shropshire Classis’ 33–43. 136 Parkinson, Autobiography of Henry Newcome I 46. 137 Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987) 309–310.

Bibliography Manuscript Sources Bodleian Library, Oxford., Rawlinson, A 26 (51), An Abstract of Such Ministers as Were Ejected by the Late Commissioners for Propagating the Gospel, Sitting at Newcastle, from June 5 A.D 1650, to April 1 1653 in the County of Durham, as also ye cause and time of their ejectment. Bodleian Library, Oxford. Tanner 52 (4), Letter of orders granted by the Classical Presbytery within the City of London to Simon Patrick, fellow of Queens College, Cambridge; April 8 1653. Cambridge University Library, Add 4409, Oxford University petitions 1649. Cambridge University, Peterhouse, Journal of Lazarus Seaman. Inverary Papers, Duke of Argyll, mss transcripts, Bundle 13/17 L, Commission of Archibald Campbell of Drumsymie From the gentlemen of the schrye, Inverary 19 January 1652. Lambeth Palace Library, Comm Va., Records of the Commonwealth Augmentation Order Books Volume V. Lambeth Palace Library, Comm Va., Volume I–12, Records of the Commonwealth, Augmentation Order Books Volume III. National Library of Scotland, Wodrow Folio XXX, No 22, Considerations before our choice or consent unto the Incorporation. New College, Edinburgh Myl, Collections of Ecclesiastical affairs 1645–1705. New College, Edinburgh WES, 1.1–5, Minutes of the Sessions of the Assembly of Divines. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, CR 4/12, Templepatrick kirk Session Record. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/ 1759/2A/5, Notes Relating to Ministers of the Gospel.

Printed Primary Sources A Necessary Examination of a Dangerous Design and Practice against the Interest and the Soveraigty of the Nation and the Commonwealth of England, by the Presbytery of Belfast in the Province of Ulster in Ireland (London, 1649. Anon, The Case of the University of Oxford (1652). Apologeticall Declaration of the Conscientious Presbyterians of the Province of London (London, 1649).

122 Corruption Armet C M and John, IV, Marquis of Bute, K.T. eds., Kirkcudbright Town Council Records 1606–1658 (Edinburgh, 1958). Armstrong Robert, Holmes Andrew and Spurlock Scott eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland: Two Seventeenth Century Narratives (Belfast, 2016). A Serious and Faithfull Representation of the Judgements of the Ministers of the Gospell within the Province of London (London, 1649). Baillie Robert, A Scotch Antidote against the English Infection of Arminanism (London, 1652). Baxter Richard, Christian Concord: or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors and Churches or Worcestershire (1653). Baxter Richard, Reliquiae Baxteriane (London, 1696) Burrows Montagu ed. The Register of the Visitors of the University of Oxford from AD 1647-AD 1658 (London, 1881). Commissioners of the General Assembly of Scotland, A Declaration from the Commissioners of the Generall Assemblie of the Kingdom of Scotland (London, 1648). Commission of the Kirk, Declaration of the Commissioners of the General Assembly (Edinburgh, 1649). Commons Journal Crosley, James ed., The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington I (Manchester, 1847). Firth, Charles Harding, Scotland and the Commonwealth: Letters and Papers Relating to the Military Government of Scotland From August 1651 to December 1653 (Edinburgh, 1895). Firth Charles Harding and Rait, Robert S, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (London, 1911). Gee, Edward, A Plea for Non-Subscribers or the Grounds and Reasons of Many Ministers in Cheshire, Lancashire and the Parts adjoyning for Their Refusal of the Late Engagement’ (London, 1650). Green, Mary ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1649–1650 (London, 1886). Hay-Fleming, David ed., Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston Volume II 1650–1654 (Edinburgh, 1919). Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eighth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London, 1887) part II ‘MSS of His Grace the Duke of Manchester’. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on Various Collections (London, 1901–1914). Keeble, N H and Nuttall, G F eds., Calendar of Correspondence of Richard Baxter (Oxford, 1991) Killen, William ed., A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866). Laing, David, ed., A Diary of Public Transactions and Other Occurrences, Chiefly in Scotland From January 1660 to June 1667 (Edinburgh, 1836). Laing, David ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1849). London Provincial Assembly, A Vindication of the Presbyteriall Government and Ministry (London, 1649). London Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici: Or the Divine Right of the Gospel Ministry (London, 1654).

Corruption  123 Martindale, Adam, An Antidote Against the Poyson of the Times (Manchester, 1653). Marwick, James D ed., Extracts From the Records of the Burgh of Glasgow 1630– 1662 (Edinburgh, 1881). Matthews, Arnold ed., Calamy Revised: Being a Revision of Edmund Calamy’s Account of the Ministers, Others Ejected and Silenced (Oxford, 1947). McCrie, Thomas ed., The Life of Robert Blair, Minister of St Andrews, Containing His Autobiography From 1593 to 1636 With a Supplement to His Life and Continuation of the Times Until 1680 (Edinburgh, 1858). Mercurius Politicus 19 March – 25 March 1652. Mercurius Politicus 1 May – 9 May 1651. Mitchell, Alexander F and Christie, James eds., The Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland holden in Edinburgh the Years 1650 to 1652 (Edinburgh, 1896). Mitchell, Alexander F and Struthers, John eds., Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines While Engaged in Preparing for Their Directory of Church Government, Confession of Faith and Catechisms (London, 1874). Parkinson, Richard ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852). Parkinson, Richard ed., The Life of Adam Martindale, Written by Himself (Manchester, 1845). Renwick, Robert ed., Extracts From the Royal Burgh of Stirling A.D. 1519–1666 (Scottish Burgh Records Society; Glasgow, 1887). Shaw, William A, Minutes of the Manchester Presbyterian Classis (Manchester, 1890). Stephen, William ed., Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh and Some Other Brethren of the Ministry (Edinburgh, 1921). Terry, Charles Sandford ed., The Cromwellian Union (Edinburgh, 1902). The Faithfull Scout 2 May – 9 May 1651. Whitelocke, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs From the Beginning of the Reign of Charles the First to the Happy Restoration of King Charles the Second (Oxford, 1853). Wood, Antony, The History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford II (Oxford, 1752).

Secondary Sources Boran, Elizabethane, ‘Malignancy and Reform of the University of Oxford in the Mid Seventeenth Century’’ History of the Universities Volume XVII (2001–2002) 19–46. Coulton, Barbara, ‘The Fourth Shropshire Classis 1647–62’, Shropshire History and Archeology Volume 73 (1998) 33–43. Cross, Claire, ‘The Church in England 1646–1660’, in Gerald Edward Alymer ed., The Interregnum: A Quest for a Settlement 1646–1660 (London, 1971). Dow, F D, Cromwellian Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979). Gray, Arthur and Brittain, Frederick, A History of Jesus College Cambridge (London, 1960). Hughes, Ann, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987).

124 Corruption MacKenzie, Kirsteen M, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms’ in Patrick Little ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (London, 2008). Mullinger, James E, The University of Cambridge From the Election to the Chancellorship in 1626 to the Decline of the Platonist Movement (Cambridge, 1911). Porter, H C, ‘Catherine Hall and the Reformation 1500–1650’, in Rich E.E. ed., St Catherine’s College, Cambridge 1473–1973 (Cambridge, 1973). Seymour, St John, Puritans in Ireland 1647–1661 (Oxford, 1921). Smart, Ian Michael, ‘Edward Gee and the Matter of Authority’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History Volume 27 (1976) 115–127. Stevenson, David, ‘Cromwell, Scotland and Ireland’ in John Morrill ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London, 1990). Stevenson, David, Revolution and Counter Revolution 1644–1651 (Edinburgh, 1977). Vernon, Elliot, ‘The Quarell of the Covenant: The London Presbyterians and the Regicide’ in Peacey Jason ed., The Regicides and the Execution of Charles I (London, 2001). Wallace, J M, ‘The Engagement Controversy 1649–1652: An Annotated List of Pamphlets’, Bulletin of New York City Library Volume 68 (1964) 384–405. Worden, Blair, ‘Cromwellian Oxford’ in N Tyacke ed., The History of the University of Oxford IV Seventeenth Century Oxford (Oxford, 1997). Worden, Blair, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1973).

4 Negotiating integration and re-establishment, 1653–1656

The establishment of the Protectorate in December 1653 resulted in significant changes for the covenanted interest. In England, two bodies, the Triers and the Ejectors, were set up in March and September 1654, respectively. English Presbyterians, previously a danger to the English Commonwealth, were now actively recruited into the fold. The Triers were a body of laymen and ministers for the approval of new ministers and existing ministers in their new livings. The Ejectors were laymen and ministers organised by counties to eject ministers who were deemed to be ‘ignorant, scandalous, insufficient or negligent’. For Scotland, an ordinance was created to support the universities and encourage preachers to propagate the gospel. This consisted of five provinces overseen by laymen and clergy to approve new ministers into livings and award stipends and to suppress scandalous practices, whether in the ministry or in the laity, but this met strong resistance from the Scottish Kirk, which sought to contain Gillespie’s influence and managed to do so with some success.1 In the North of Ireland, restrictions on Scottish ministers were officially removed, and the Commissioners of the Revenue were asked to seek out Scottish ministers who were well disposed towards the government and offer them maintenance to propagate the gospel. In Dublin, a Committee for the Approbation of Preachers was also constructed to root out vice and looseness and to promote godliness.2

English Presbyterians and the Triers and Ejectors The origins of the Triers and Ejectors system did not primarily lie in the proposed religious settlement of 1648, but in the Humble Proposals drawn up in 1652 by, amongst others, John Owen, Philip Nye, and Thomas Godwin, opponents of the covenanted interest.3 These proposals suggested that gifted and godly people might preach the gospel without ordination. It was further suggested that a committee consisting of ministers and laity in every county should be appointed to remove the residue of ministers who were ignorant or scandalous in the service of God. This would be done by the appointment of the laity and ministry who would travel in six circuits throughout the country and eject those ministers.4 These ideas would later

126 Negotiating form into committees known as the Triers and Ejectors in 1654. Active classical Presbyterians were nominated to the national committee, including Francis Rous, Thomas Manton and Samuel Bamford, but these men were dwarfed by the other 35 members of the committee who were Independents, Baptists or moderates who did not advocate a particular form of worship.5 The Lord Protector himself wished to get active Presbyterians involved in shaping the religious structure of the nation and approved the final draft of the ordinance for the Triers which had been amended in order to allow Samuel Bamford, a prominent member of the London Provincial Assembly, to sit on the committee.6 It is well known that Cromwell wanted Presbyterians to be part of his broad religious settlement which aimed to unite the godly Protestants of all forms of worship in the three kingdoms. Thomas Manton was later to play a leading role as a ‘referee’ between the government in London and ministers in Scotland.7 The reasons for Thomas Manton’s nomination are mysterious, as he was a staunch opponent of the new republic in 1649 and gave Mr Love’s funeral sermon.8 He was one of the scribes to the Westminister Assembly during the 1640s and was an extremely popular preacher. Francis Rous was nominated because of his proven loyalty to the regime as a member of the religious committees during the Rump, and he also held a position on the new council.9 Far more active supporters of the Classis system were appointed as Ejectors. Representation on Ejector committees was widespread but unevenly spread across the county committees. There were 38 committees in total covering England and Wales, and 17 of these committees, less than half, had active Presbyterians sitting on them.10 Some committees, such as Lancaster and London, were dominated by Presbyterians and others, such as Warwick, only had one Presbyterian sitting on them, and some, like Kent, had no known Presbyterians sitting. The uneven distribution can be explained for various reasons. Using the examples of Kent and Sussex, the lack of Presbyterian representation on these committees can be explained by the failure of these counties to establish classical-based Presbyterianism or local political elites which had little vested interest in Presbyterian Church government.11 In the cases of Warwick and Lincoln, although it is known that classes were operating in these areas, their records are not extant.12 So it was possible that some yet unidentified Presbyterians may be lurking in the legislation. In counties where an active, but partial, Presbyterian structure was working, for example, Shropshire, it is clear that many Presbyterians were chosen to sit on the committee.13 Shropshire had largely supported the government after the Engagement controversy, and Thomas Paget, the leading Presbyterian in Shewsbury, had taken a State benefice since the early 1650s.14 Unfortunately, there is little evidence to show how Presbyterians were nominated to the Ejectors, but based on Newcome’s reaction alone, it appears that the nominations were made from on high and behind closed doors. Newcome was chosen for Cheshire and although surprised by his

Negotiating  127 nomination, he accepted his post gladly, although later recalling it as a weakness of vanity.15 However, the nomination of Presbyterian ministers on Ejectors’ committees did not mean that they were comfortable with the religious policy of the Protectorate. Within the first four months of the Protectorate, the London Provincial Assembly issued its Jus Divinum Minsisterii Evangelici, or the Divine Right of the Gospel Ministry. This book was due to be published at least two years beforehand but had experienced many difficulties getting into print.16 The main argument was for the existence of a professional ordained ministry. It did this in two parts. The first part proved the need for a ministry in general and formal ordination, thereby showing the error of allowing the laity to preach the Word without an inner call or vocation. The second part argued that Presbyterian ordination was lawful and Christian, including those ordinations carried out before the abolition of episcopacy. The main target of the London Provincial Assembly was not the government, but the Baptists and other sectaries who did not believe in the distinct office of minister.17 The ministry was in danger of destruction, and there needed to be restrictions on who preached the Word, ensuring the preservation of the distinctive ministerial office. Without an acknowledged office, atheism would grow, and souls would be led away from the Lord.18 The office was created by God and could be seen from the earliest biblical times, with ministers teaching, ruling and guiding the saints amongst the laity.19 God had stipulated that no man might enter the position of minister unless he had been formally ordained.20 The correct form of ordination was ordination by prayer, fasting and the laying on of the hands by the presbytery, as proved by Timothy in the New Testament.21 The second part of the Jus Divium focused its attention on another argument that any Presbyterian ordination carried out before the abolition of episcopacy was unlawful and anti-Christian. The Presbyterians declared there was no evidence in the scriptures to suggest that ministers needed reordination if they had already been ordained.22 The ordination of Presbyterians was made legal by Parliament before the abolition of Episcopacy.23 Presbyterians were the successors of the reformers and the Apostles.24 In August 1654, Simeon Ashe, a member of the London Provincial Assembly, lamented these ‘broken times filled with errours and discontents’, but he was positive that the Lord would preserve Church ordinances.25 He encouraged people to protect the ordinances of the Church from abolition and corruption and argued that a form of church discipline needed to be established in churches throughout England, stating that heresy had spread like a plague throughout the land.26 The most direct criticism came from London Presbyterian Thomas Watson in a sermon to the House of Commons on 27 December 1654: This nation is sick of a spiritual pleurisy . . . I heartlily pray that plenty of ordinances doth not as much hurt in this City, has Famine hath done

128 Negotiating in other places of the land; and if we once say, what is this Manna? No wonder if we begin to say, who is this Moses? Oh what a sad change there is in our dayes! Those that once would have counted our feet Beautifull, that would have been ready to pull out their eyes for their Minister, are now ready to pull out their Ministers eyes.27 God’s creation of the ministry was part of God’s order for the world.28 In his book The Schools Guarded, Thomas Hall of King’s Norton in Warwickshire continued many of these arguments as he argued for an educated ministry to halt the spread of sectaries.29 Hall argued that an understanding of languages, such as Latin, Greek and Hebrew, grammar and logic, and history was essential to anyone training as a minister in order to understand translations and the original books of the Old and New Testaments.30 Hall’s fellow members of the newly formed Kenilworth Classis in 1654 became involved in a religious debate with Independent pastor John Onley. Dr John Bryan, one of the most prominent members of the Classis, stated that the creation of the Classis in 1654 had its roots in the debate to bring some order, stability and structure into parishes because ‘some are not satisfied in conscience concerning the truth of our churches and ministry’.31 Dr Bryan believed that Presbyterian Church government was the only form of worship which had the blessing of God.32 English Presbyterians were still hoping for some order in the church which underpinned stability in society.

Gillespie’s charter: protest and defence During the first month of the new regime the Resolutioners, like their English counterparts, were not happy with the religious situation as it stood. The Resolutioners continued to pursue covenanted uniformity and sent a commissioner to London to assist and advise the London Provincial Assembly.33 The Resolutioners also issued a ‘warning’ to all pulpits in the country encouraging the faithful to keep the Covenant: Presse, after the studie of Scripture, the serious reading of our precious confession, Catechisme, and Directorie, for the establishing of our heart against the heresies of the Anabaptists, Antinomians, Antitrinitarians, Famlists, Seekers and Atheists; also the dilligent pursall of the Propositions for government against the schismatick errors of the Independents, Brownists, Ersatians, and others; against all which the Assemblies and Parliaments of Scotland has laboured to guard this Nation by oaths, covenants, acts and other means.34 Not only were people to remain steadfastly faithful to the Scottish Reformed faith and the Covenants but to the native laws, parliament and liberties of Scotland in the face of conquest.

Negotiating  129 In March 1654, Oliver Cromwell personally invited Patrick Gillespie, John Livingston and John Menzies to London to discuss plans for the religious settlement of Scotland. Lillburne reported back that Gillespie and Livingston were willing to see the Protector but could not say anything about Menzies because his reply would take longer to receive.35 Gillespie and Livingston were having conferences with their fellow Protesters to decide how they should respond to such an invitation from the Lord Protector, indicating that there was resistance to the invitation.36 Lillburne had threatened to send Livingston to London as a prisoner if he did not accept the invitation.37 It was decided that Gillespie and Livingston should ignore the call because it would put their consciences in ‘snares’ by submitting to the Erastian power of the Lord Protector. John Livingston resolved: Neyther to meet with and sitt in consultation with Independents divynes nor his collegues, bot give his aunswers alon; that he would speak in the name of no one bot himself; that he would tell them they had our mynds in our testimoneys; that they would satisfactorily aunswer thes; that he knew no waye but to sett up comission and visitation of 1650.38 Livingston was going to reject the new Protectoral religious settlement outright whilst upholding the Protesters visitation of parishes in 1650. In stating this, he invalidated all religious changes since 1651 in Scotland under the Commonwealth, including liberty of conscience. He was warned by colleagues that he might be reduced to a stooge for the regime in Scotland, or that the regime might export him into England or Ireland where he would be cut off from the rest of his contemporaries.39 However, Livingston did go to London because Sir John Scot of Scottistarvet had asked him to carry a petition to London.40 Despite Wariston’s plea, Patrick Gillespie decided to go to London and accept the religious settlement. This was not on the grounds of supporting the regime, but on the grounds that Cromwell would help Gillespie purge unwanted ministers. Whilst agreeing that the purging of the Church was necessary, other Protesting ministers disagreed with Gillespie taking on the power himself.41 Protesters who disagreed with Gillespie drew up a declaration in response to the invitation by the Protector.42 They made it known to the Protectorate that the religious provisions in the Instrument of Government were not acceptable, and they did not agree with the conquest and union, seeing it as a breach of the Covenant.43 With the religious provisions in the Instrument, toleration had been established in law as a fundamental and common right, but this was contrary to the Word of God, the Vow and Protestation of 1641, the National Covenant of Scotland in 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. There was no precedent for the wide religious provisions in the Instrument or another example of it in the Christian world. This ‘toleration’ had allowed, and would allow, officers in the army to determine the religious establishment of Scotland without consulting the Kirk. The

130 Negotiating English regime had been given a blank remit over the religious landscape in Scotland and was not bound by the Scottish Reformed tradition and law. Like their English counterparts, the Protesters were keen to convey the value of an educated and ordained ministry to uphold social and religious order. As the provisions stood, they allowed the spread of heresy without deterrent or punishment.44 In a direct attack against the principle of liberty of conscience, they stated that an individual was required to be bound by law to keep him from heresy. Conscience alone does not have any restrictions. The Protesters were distressed that those carrying out these religious changes had sworn to uphold the Solemn League and Covenant to protect the Reformed faith of Scotland. The provisions in the Instrument ignored the fact that there had been an established and well-ordered Church in Scotland for over a hundred years which had many followers.45 In April 1654, Gillespie and Livingston made their way to London, with Menzies following in May. As Menzies began his journey to London, Oliver Cromwell invited some ministers for meetings to discuss the religious settlement of Scotland. These were: Robert Blair, Robert Douglas and Protester James Guthrie. Robert Blair and Robert Douglas excused themselves on the grounds of illness and James Guthrie made an excuse.46 The Resolutioners believed that Gillespie had ‘unwarrantable designs’ against the majority in the Church.47 Only two Scottish Presbyterians, Gillespie and Livingston, both Protesters, went to London to meet with the Protector. Attending the meetings was one matter but reaching agreement with the regime was quite another. Livingstone remained true to his word when he arrived in London. When he was asked to perform a sermon for the Lord Protector, he preached in favour of the King and prayed for God’s mercy upon those ‘poor men’ who wrongly occupied their place.48 He did not stay for long, as he ‘found no great satisfaction’, and came home.49 It was reported that Gillespie was too compliant with the regime, seeing it as a prime opportunity to gain money and resources for Glasgow University and to extend his authority over surrounding bishoprics by using the English State.50 The result of these meetings was An Ordinance of the better support of the Universities in Scotland and encouragement of publick preachers there, more commonly known as Gillespie’s Charter.51 The Protectorate’s plans to interfere with the universities and the ministry were nothing new, but the major difference with the Commonwealth was that the Protectorate aimed to interfere with funding for the universities by directing money from church lands, disregarding the rights of heritors and putting power into the hands of a small, hand-chosen minority without consulting the Kirk.52 During the Commonwealth, despite the prohibition of general meetings and praying for the King, Protesters and Resolutioners retained the power of ordination and the planting of parishes under their control. Now the Protectorate assumed the financial and clerical responsibilities for all parishes in Scotland by declaring who could receive money from the regime and who could preach. One of the qualifications was to be well disposed towards the

Negotiating  131 government and thus the independent power of the Kirk was declared null and void. Those who were to approve new ordinations and appointments were to be supporters of the regime and the Kirk’s own system of ordination or selection was to be disregarded. The new structure would override the Kirk’s synods, presbyteries and Kirk sessions and divide Scotland into five ‘provinces’ consisting of laity and clergy who were to ‘try and eject’ ministers in Scotland. Therefore, the main function of these provinces was adopted from the English legislation for the ‘Triers and Ejectors’ rather than the Reformed Scottish religion. The ordinance also promoted liberty of conscience by legalising the existence of gathered churches.53 Gillespie, in fact, had very little input into the decision-making process. The ordinance was the ‘brainchild’ of a council committee which was to ‘confer’ with Scottish ministers and report back to the Council of State. The ‘desires’ of Gillespie and Menzies were approved, and they were given £100 per year, or £200– £300 Scots money paid out of the customs of Aberdeen and Glasgow for the use of their respective universities. The committee’s proceedings mirrored those of the Committee for Union in 1652 through payments to ensure loyalty and the implementation of the ordinance. The Scottish representatives played a consultative rather than active role in constructing policy.54 Both Protesters and Resolutioners issued declarations against the ordinance. In their ‘considerations of the order of dutie of ministers’, the Protesters stated that they could not lawfully dispose certificates on ministers who wished to enter the Church of Scotland under this ordinance and that the regime was overriding the lawful power of the presbyteries. The Protector’s power was ‘authoritative, arbitrarie and prelaticall’ with ministers ‘bribed’ into accepting positions through the offer of a stipend, putting the Presbytery under ‘inquisition and tryell’.55 Protesters were also concerned that there were no known restrictions on those who could apply for ministerial office and no appeal procedure for any decision. For the State to exercise such power is sinful and unlawful.56 To request that current and future ministers should live peacefully under the present government is impossible because they cannot concede that the present power is the rightful government.57 Under these proposals, ministers would be brought under arbitrary conditions controlled by the few ministers loyal to the government. The power to govern the Church does not lie with the Protector but the Protester General Assembly and its subsequent legislation. The legitimate power to reform the Church in England comes from a rightfully constituted English Parliament with an Assembly of Divines. Christ is the head of the Scottish Kirk, not the Erastrian English State.58 The Resolutioners also had similar objections about the ordinance because the Kirk was confirmed by Acts of General Assemblies and Scottish law, as stated in the National Covenant of 1638 and Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. The Church alone should perform the election and admission of ministers following the methods laid down since the Reformation as written in the Word of God. Only Scots law and the presbytery could determine

132 Negotiating stipends. Resolutioners declared that the new form of ‘Prelatical’ Church government would destroy the Reformation and urged the regime to allow the Church to enjoy its liberties.59 The regime had no authority to appoint ministers, and the presbytery had better knowledge of congregations. Again, the ordinance aimed to take the power of the Church out of the hands of the many and put it into the hands of the few. The new ordinance would allow those who are without a call to become part of the ministry, thereby altering the very nature of the Kirk.60 They argued that a minority within the Kirk wanted power in their own hands, and this is exploited by the English to purge out those whom they regarded as scandalous and insufficient.61 The Scottish Reformed tradition should be upheld as established by Scottish law, no assemblies should be prevented from meeting and no minister should be planted or elected within the Kirk without the consent of the Church and the congregations.62 The containment of Gillespie and his faction continued to be a priority for the Resolutioners and Protesters when Broghill came to chair the Scottish council in 1655.63

Scottish Presbyterians and the council: containment Patrick Little has already shown that Broghill’s Scottish relations and friendship with Clotworthy had already brought him into contact with Presbyterian grievances. In 1654, Broghill was already courting the Resolutioners through his contacts with Robert Douglas. Broghill and Clotworthy both had discussions with leading Resolutioner ministers on prayers for the King.64 When Broghill arrived in Edinburgh, his mission was to reach an agreement on the ordinance of 1654. However, he was to discover that unity was sidelined in favour of attacking the validity of the ordinance of 1654 and manoeuvring in order to contain Gillespie’s influence.65 Ministers feared the destruction of the Kirk: [Of] restraints and penalties contained in the severall prohibitions of that practise which did strattien our libertie in that matter, will be unavoidable prejudces not to many godly Ministers only, but to the Ministrie itself, and to the free exercises of Gospell in this land.66 Resolutioners feared that if they continued to pray for the King, the government would continue to favour Gillespie, and a minority would come to dominate the Kirk and pervert the established Church and Reformation.67 Ministers stressed their actions in halting public prayers for the King were due to ‘religious motives’ rather than any ‘stubbornesse of spirit’ or ‘carnall’ or ‘worldly motives’.68 When we examine the discussions between the factions of the Kirk during Broghill’s term of office in Edinburgh, it is clear that both factions had the same overall objections to the ordinance and were all concerned about the rise of Gillespie. The Resolutioners believed that all ministers and members

Negotiating  133 of the Kirk should submit themselves first and foremost to the authority and guidance of presbyteries and synods in church affairs. In cases where the minister was proved insufficient or scandalous, the authority for purging such ministers also lay with the presbytery and then with the synod. The responsibility for the planting of ministers also lay with the presbytery. The charter was to be firmly ignored in favour of the existing Church structure. The qualifications and testing of ministers’ abilities within the Kirk would be done according to the rules set down in the Acts of the General Assembly of Scotland and the Directory of Worship and not by the standards and mechanisms of the English ordinance.69 Like the Resolutioners, Protesters made no mention of the ordinance and pledged instead to uphold the covenants already established in the churches of the three kingdoms. They rejected the method proposed in the ordinance for the purging of scandalous ministers and advocated full control be given to synods and presbyteries, suggesting that the work should be done by commissions and visitations, as appropriate, according to the rules laid down by the General Assembly.70 In the autumn of 1655, the majority of Protesters under Wariston tried to contain Gillespie and his influence through discussion and persuasion. Samuel Rutherford suggested that the Covenant should be renewed up and down the land, but this was rejected.71 The Protesters did attempt to revise some of the clauses in the Covenant, and in doing so, they hoped to revive some of the enthusiasm for the Covenant amongst the laity and approach the English regime with these revised clauses. In the event that the English did not assist, Protesters were self-assured that God would remove the English as a stumbling block to their plans. They made it clear that they would not sit alongside Independents on the committees proposed by the ordinance but would follow the example of the commission of 1650. It was clear that Patrick Gillespie was not happy, and he tried to salvage the ordinance from complete rejection by looking at how it could be modified and integrated into existing Scottish Church practice for his own sake. By October 1655, Broghill knew his government was fighting a losing battle in trying to implement the ordinance. At the end of November, it was known that the majority of Protesters wished to use the commission of 1650.72 Gillespie continued to have strong links with the government and gave a lecture to the Scottish Council acknowledging its trust and power in the nation, and according to Broghill, ‘many of the ministers were offended’.73 Later that month, a delegation of ministers and elders from the west, including Gillespie and Livingstone, presented themselves before the council, looking to negotiate separately from the other Protesters, but this was rejected with Broghill realising that Gillespie and Livingstone would not be able to bring the Church into a settlement. Gillespie’s position in Scotland was now successfully diminished and temporarily contained.74 The Resolutioners were very anxious to patch up the divisions within the Church because:

134 Negotiating The authority of church government is weakened, scandals are multiplied, errour, profanity, yea, and Poperie, is like to turn prevalent, and our Brethren themselves left to run upon snares for upholding that party and advancing of what they can conceve to be the work of God . . . consider that famous Kirk is near already a lauching stock unto all who are round about, while we byt and devour one another.75 In December 1655, an argument took place over who had the best past performance in expelling ministers. Protesters claimed that Resolutioners were not capable of this work and did very little to eject scandalous ministers and argued that the authority of the Assembly of 1650 and its visitations should be recognised as valid.76 In January 1656, the two basic positions of Resolutioners and Protesters regarding the planting of ministers were intimated in letters directly to the Council of Scotland.77 In their letter, the Resolutioners argued that the Church must be governed by traditional means, by Scottish law and the Word of God, and a minority within the Church, the Protesters, not only wanted to purge insufficient ministers but also wanted to purge Resolutioners from their positions and replace them with their own ministers by manipulating already established Church practices for their own ends. Therefore, the Resolutioners asked the Scottish Council to help preserve ‘the Covenanted Reformation’ by allowing the Church to use established practices within the Kirk and invited the council to be an arbiter in the Protester/Resolutioner dispute78 It was not until August 1656 that the council drew up a solution to the ordinance problem. Urged on by representatives from every synod, it was argued that the Reformed gospel needed to be propagated effectively in the face of growing Catholicism, and this could not be done whilst the ordinance was still in force. Therefore, the council declared that new admissions were required to put themselves in front of the council and bring a certificate demonstrating approval by the presbytery. The certificate stated: The Brethren of Presbytrie A, to humbly certifie that B C, upon a lawfull election and in the way and order prescribed in this Church, now admitted Minister at D, is of an holy life and unblamable conversation, and, for the grace of God in him, and for his knowledge and utterance, able and fitt to preach the Gospell.79 The entrant also had to draw up his own petition: That your Petitioner being now lawfully called and admitted to the ministry at D, according to the order of this Church, and having the testimony of presbyterie A, concerning his conversation and qualification as the act of admission and the Presbytrie’s certificate herewith produced, do shew, is resolved to live peaceably and inoffesivley under the Present Government, and purposeth, through the Lord’s strength, to labour will

Negotiating  135 all diligence and faithfullnesse in all the dueties of that charge whereunto he is admitted, and to behave himself in all things as becometh a minister of the Gospell. Therefore may it please your Lordships to give order for his receiving and enjoying the stipend and whole benefits due and belonging unto the said charge since his call and submission, and for tyme comeing, without lett or interruption’.80 The committee system, as outlined in the ordinance, was fully abandoned and replaced by ordinations authorised by synods and presbyteries of the Kirk. Although the Scottish Council was required to witness certificates detailing a candidate’s ability to fill a parish, it was merely a case of ‘rubberstamping’ the judgement of the presbytery. Gillespie’s protesters could not interfere with, nor corrupt, the Scottish Reformed faith through an overarching committee. According to Broghill, the ministry of the Kirk now accepted this solution.81 In practice, the shifting sands in government policy and the divisive tactics of Gillespie could make the planting of parishes a very messy affair. In Stirling, for example, the State became involved in a new appointment. Delegates from the presbytery were sent to the synod of Galloway, which had connections with Patrick Gillespie, to look for a new minister for Holy Rude in Stirling. Ministers from other congregations preached there until a new minister could be found, but when a minister was found, Holy Rude had to wait until Gillespie had returned from the consultations in London. The minister chosen was Matthias Sympson, a Protesting minister. As tradition warranted, the congregation tested Mr Sympson’s doctrine and made him preach before the congregation. The congregation was happy with the outcome and gave him the call. However, a few weeks later, it came to light that elders had in fact felt pressured by the Council to elect Sympson, and there had been resistance to his election from some neighbouring ministers. In December 1655, soldiers from the Stirling garrison interrupted the Church service and enquired why Sympson was not preaching that day. The congregation replied that they had no official certificate from the Council of State, and therefore, by the new rules, Sympson could not preach. By February 1656, the situation had still not been resolved, and a congregational fast was appointed because of the unsettled state of the congregation. The Protesters decided to resolve the dispute by contacting the Council of State in Edinburgh. James Guthrie, a prominent Protester, gave good testimony to the council on Sympson’s behalf. The Kirk session believed this was contrary to normal proceedings, and it imposed a ‘grosse faction’ upon the Kirk. Resistance to Sympson continued, and the dispute was only resolved by building a wall inside the church, thereby allowing ministers who disapproved of Sympson’s

136 Negotiating appointment to preach and assisting the desire to continue the traditional procedures of the Kirk.82

The re-establishment and growth of the Presbyterian church in Ireland Between 1653 and 1655, the Ulster Presbyterian Church rose from its precarious position like a phoenix from the ashes. It consolidated its position and expanded throughout the North of Ireland. Presbyterians also began to have a visible presence in and around Dublin.83 It was not the same Church that had existed before its disintegration during the Commonwealth. Congregations, as they now stood, cannot merely be described as ‘Presbyterian’ but can be divided into four clear categories as follows. Re-established: a congregation established again, in its former place, under its former name. Lost congregations: due to a minister still remaining in Scotland or being elsewhere in Ireland. Congregations taken over by others: those not following Presbyterian Church discipline. Brand new congregations: those that had never existed before, previous to or during the Commonwealth. There were 24 re-established congregations between 1653 and 1655 in the North of Ireland. In total, there were six congregations lost, four due to ministers still being in Scotland or being elsewhere in Ireland, and two lost to other ministers who were not Presbyterian. There were a staggering 24 new congregations founded during this period. Considering the congregations that were lost to others, Carrickfergus remained in the hands of Timothy Taylor, the prominent Independent, because the more radical Protestants still held favour with the government in Dublin.84 The congregation at Newry became Episcopalian during the 1650s when Anthony Buckworth took over the congregation. Its former occupant, James Simpson, had joined the Protesters in Scotland by 1654 and was appointed a commissioner in the Ordinance for the Universities of Scotland.85 Greyabbey and Islandmagee were not active Presbyterian congregations, as their ministers were still in Scotland. The minister of Greyabbey remained in Scotland after he fled the parish as a consequence of the republican Engagement. He took up a charge in Barr, Ayrshire, for the rest of the 1650s.86 Islandmagee was lost when its occupant, Henry Main, refused the Engagement in 1650 and was obliged to go to Scotland where he died in October 1651. The parish remained empty until William Milne from Aberdeen took up the charge in December 1657.87 Hugh Cunningham fled his parish of Ray during the Engagement controversy, and although he had returned to Ireland by 1654, he did not return to Ray until 1657.88 Bushmills, occupied by Jeremiah O’Quinn, remained empty during this period because he had been ordered by the government to preach the gospel amongst the Irish in Athy and Connaught.89 The re-establishment of the Church can be divided into three phases. The first phase runs from May 1652 with the initial restoration of parishes after

Negotiating  137

Figure 4.1  The Ulster Presbyterian Church, 1653–1655

‘conventicling’ to proposals for transplantation in May 1653. The second phase examines the period of proposed transplantation to the establishment of the Protectorate in December 1653. The third phase examines factors that developed under Lord Deputy Fleetwood that allowed the Church to re-estabish itself from December 1653 to July 1655. The first two phases, although taking place during the Commonwealth, were important foundations upon which the later consolidation of the Church was based. Despite

138 Negotiating being few and far between, sources after the period of ‘coventicling’ suggest that the Church went back to business as usual in 1652. The Kirk session record of Templepatrick, after leaving a few blank pages between 1650 and 1652, commenced on a new page carrying on with the proceedings as if nothing had happened.90 Therefore, it can be concluded that the period of ‘coventicling’ did not change the procedures of the Church. It is also known that a new minister, Donald Richmond, was ordained in Hollywood in 1652 and that the minister Thomas Vesey returned to the Church the same year. Despite having many of its ministers abroad and parishes empty, the Church continued as normal.91 The Church averted a major crisis in May 1653 by avoiding the transportation of ministers to England. Ministers became closer to the government and were willing to propagate the gospel. Relations improved further when plans for the Ulster-Scot transplantation were shelved, and the Church began to settle.92 From the establishment of the Protectorate until the arrival of Henry Cromwell in July 1655, there were various internal and external factors which explain the consolidation of the Church. Presbyterians were not restricted, nor interrupted, in their meetings by external forces such as the army or by sectaries, giving the Church stability.93 There was also a noted change in attitude in the government in Dublin towards Presbyterians. Some Protesters had gone to Dublin in order to be given a government salary. Therefore, the perception that Protesters supported the regime must have been replicated in Dublin by this time. Indeed, seven Presbyterian ministers had been given State payment in 1654, and some of these can be described as Protesters.94 Furthermore, in parallel to the attitude of the London government towards the Resolutioners in Scotland, the Resolutioners within the Ulster Church were also offered State assistance.95 By replicating government policy towards Presbyterians in London and in Scotland, the Council in Dublin was falling in line with the Lord Protector’s objectives of making Presbyterians an integral part of the new national church, counterbalancing the now discontented and disruptive Baptist influence in Ireland.96 In July 1655, the Dublin government corresponded with the Kenilworth Classis, requesting godly ministers for Ireland.97 The impetus for consolidation came from within the Church itself. A major factor during this period was the Ulster Presbyterian attitude towards the Protester and Resolutioner dispute in Scotland. Many of the Ulster Presbyterians who had remained in Ireland during the Commonwealth period had very little interest in the internal disputes within the Scottish Kirk. Most of those who had remained in Scotland refused to bring the dispute across with them, but there were signs of a split by 1654. Ker, O’Quinn, Hugh Cunningham and Semple were known Protesters; others were Resolutioners or had no fixed opinion. In order to put an end to such divisions, they passed the Act of Bangor, which declared that divisions within the Kirk should not be replicated in Ireland.98 Congregations were upheld by strict standards and continually assessed by their elders and the wider church community for the

Negotiating  139 ‘soundness and authority’ of their doctrine and performance of ministerial duties. The elders of the congregations were also under the scrutiny of the Church and were warned that if a minister was not paid properly, the minister would be promptly removed.99 The offer of State salaries by the government is often cited as a reason for the consolidation of the Church.100 It is easy to see why this might be the case because a State salary would give ministers a steady income and financial stability. As late as March 1655, the Church still had a bar on its tithes, and Sir John Clotworthy tried to plead the ministers’ case in Dublin by requesting the removal of restrictions. In May 1655, Sir John Clotworthy was granted the tithes to some parishes in Antrim on a temporary basis, but these ministers were still subject to government approval. On the basis of the poverty experienced by their congregations, some ministers accepted the offer of a ‘state salary’, and in the cases of Cairncastle (Adair), Antrim and Killead, it was as a result of Sir John Clotworthy’s efforts.101 It is doubtful, however, that salaries were central to the re-establishment of congregations in the North of Ireland during this period because only half of the ministers accepted a State salary before and during 1655. In fact, 25 ministers out of 48 working in the North of Ireland did not receive a State salary.102 Those who did request payment were already settled in their congregations, and therefore, the congregations were not re-established due to State salaries. Furthermore, the Presbyterian Church in Ulster wished to restrict English interference in the Church. There was a report made to the government in 1655 that stated: William Semple, minister of Laggan, at the meeting place in Bally-Kelly, did, in May 1654, declare and say that Ballykelly was accursed for being the cause of the loss so godly and able a minister as they lately had; since which time, like lost sheep, they had gone astray; exhorting them that they ought not to hear any preacher sent by any King, State or Protector, or Power whatsoever, but such as the parish gives a call for, & who are approved by the Presbytery.103 The power of the presbytery was more important than the power of the English State and Oliver Cromwell. This upset the already established minister Humphrey Leigh, who complained of the ‘bully boy’ tactics of Scottish ministers whom, in his view, were ‘repairing without licences out of Scotland into these parts’.104 Clearly, the presbytery did not respect English laws governing the traffic of people and goods between Scotland and Ireland. Parishes remained vacant when the majority of ministers went to Scotland because their main Protestant rivals, the Independents and the Episcopalians, were not in a strong enough position to take them over. Independency was never popular in Ireland because it was associated with the unpopular Baptist faction in the Council at Dublin.105 Whilst the established Protestant Church of Ireland had not been properly disestablished, many of

140 Negotiating those ministers were encouraged into the new national church from 1655 onwards.106 Its practices and liturgy had been outlawed by the English Parliament, and many sees remained vacant. A small but significant number of Church of Ireland clergy remained in Ireland, but because of their small numbers, they did not pose a threat to Presbyterian parishes in Ulster.107 Congregations of gathered saints were more important to Presbyterians than church buildings. Some congregations were created and sustained without the need of a formal church building. This is evident by the fact that out of 15 parishes in the county of Antrim in 1654, only five parishes had churches. The most significant factor influencing the re-establishment of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland was its ability to find alternative ways of funding itself without any assistance from Fleetwood’s government. Evidence from the Antrim meeting suggests that ministers were funded by parishioners, some prominent members of the parish who provided the ministers’ stipends, apportioned in relation to the value of glebe lands or church lands in the parish. The original financial proceeds of these lands had been sequestrated by the English government to fund State salaries of ministers, but, clearly, the Presbyterian Church had its own independent funding and appointed ministers without consulting the government. The Presbytery of Antrim was confronted with stories about the shortfall in wages, despite funding from congregations and the landed elite. There were two remarkable cases whereby one member of the landed elite donated three acres of his own land to make up the shortage of glebe lands for the local minister, and another congregation overlooked parish boundaries and asked the neighbouring parish to fund their minister.108 The Church of Ireland had already been allocated ‘glebe lands’ in parishes, which is evident in the civil survey, so it was not a case of creating ‘glebe lands’ but taking over lands previously occupied by the Church of Ireland. Social and economic conditions supported the re-establishment of the Church and lands owned by the chief undertakers in the plantation before and during the wars in Ireland had been ‘replanted’ with Scots and English by the mid-1650s.109 The estates in Ulster owned by the Agnew family began to be replanted as early as 1651. A tenant of Sir Andrew Agnew, Patrick Maxwell, managed to gain an order from the Commissioners of Applotment of the English Commonwealth to restore Agnew’s lands in Ulster. Patrick Maxwell had already drawn up a list of tenants who were ready to be planted on the land. By 1652, he had officially been given an order to plant the lands, and by November 1653, people were settled on the land.110 In August 1654, an undertenant on the Hamilton lands in Tyrone, William Naysmith, was applauded for his hard efforts in repopulating and ‘replanting’ lands belonging to the deceased undertaker Andrew Smith.111 The shelving of plans to transplant Ulster Scots gave planters the ability to replant their estates in a stable environment.112 The landed elite played a pivotal role in re-establishing the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Between

Negotiating  141 1652 and 1655, there was substantial migration by Scots who were looking for employment and taking advantage of the low price of Irish land.113 Many established planter estates became depopulated, and planters needed to attract more settlers.114 Raymond Gillespie estimates at least 24,000 Scots had emigrated to Ulster by 1660.115 In addition to the 24 re-established congregations, there were another 24 congregations founded during this period which had a significant impact on the structure of the Church. In 1654, the only presbytery in Ulster, Carrickfergus, was scrapped, and three new presbyteries were founded at Antrim, Laggan and Down.116 The possibility of a State salary may have made the Church attractive to new ministers, but not all ministers accepted a State salary. There was a demand from the people in the North of Ireland for Presbyterian Church government, and the land remained in the laity’s possession, which could facilitate the funding of new ministers. There was a steady supply of ministers coming over to Ireland from Scotland during 1654, primarily due to the lack of funded vacancies in the Scottish Kirk and the opportunities being presented by the Church in Ireland.117 It was for this reason that James Johnston, who was originally planted in the parish of Bute, went over to Ireland after September 1654. The parish of Bute did not settle him in the parish, and the synod did not ‘impose him’ upon the congregation. Seeing the ‘sad conditione’ of Bute and the ‘poor estate’ of the congregation, James Johnston decided to go to Ireland. The Presbytery noted ‘yr [there] is a dor open to Irland and that people may repair hithier and returne safe’.118 Lines of travel and communication were now open and free between the two countries.119 The Presbyterian Church was upbeat and happy with its situation in 1654, and Patrick Adair believed that God was blessing and encouraging the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.120 How did the Presbyterian Church in Ireland fund these new congregations if just under half of the ministers during this period accepted a State salary? The logical conclusion, following the earlier example of the Antrim presbytery, would be the practice of asking the local Presbyterian elite and parishioners to fund ministers based on the value of glebe and Church lands. Indeed, if the Civil Survey of 1654 is examined for the County of Donegal, Church lands for the new parishes of Fanad or Clandevaock and Ramleton or Tully/Aghneish belonged to Scottish Protestants.121 Therefore, the Church could have had financial support from prominent landowners.122 This might have been the case in other counties too, for example, new parishes in County Tyrone: Maghercross and Ardstraw. The church lands of Ardstraw were in the name of Mary and Jane Montgomery whose religion is unknown. However, the incumbent of the parish, who was not named, was entitled to the glebe lands,123 and the other lands in the parish were owned by Scots families.124 Magheracross Church lands were in the name of Andrew Hamilton, a Scottish Protestant, as were all the other lands in the parish.125

142 Negotiating It is also worth considering the significance, or otherwise, of the Solemn League and Covenant and the ease with which the Presbyterians in Ireland negotiated and accepted State payment from the regime, in comparison to their Scottish counterparts.126 The passing of the Act of Bangor heralded a change between the Church in Ireland and the Church in Scotland. Presbyterians in Ireland blocked any means by which the troubles in Scotland could be transferred to Ireland, and in doing so, they no longer looked to the Church in Scotland as an example to follow. Presbyterians in Ireland now mainly turned towards each other and the landed elite for financial support. A few ministers turned towards the English regime for support, but only on the basis that they could not obtain sufficient funding from their congregations. The ease with which a minority of ministers claimed State funding should not be regarded as odd considering the early nature of Presbyterianism in Ireland because the earliest Presbyterians were supported within the Church of Ireland until the reign of Charles I.127 Therefore, during the 1650s, ministers were returning to the English Erastian church structure. Although retaining a drive for ‘covenanted uniformity’, their acceptance of State payments would suggest that the Covenant was compromised to a certain degree. However, many Presbyterians in Ireland still prayed for the King and accepted a State salary because the Solemn League and Covenant recognised the English parliament’s authority over Ireland. By the end of 1655, there were Presbyterian ministers in Dunboyne, Athy and Dublin.128 Jeremiah O’ Quinn was posted to Athy by the government in 1654, long before Henry Cromwell took over the affairs of Ireland. William Lecky came to the ministry straight from Trinity College, Dublin, where he had graduated in 1654. Edward Veal became a fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, and was sent to Dunboyne in 1655 due to the wishes of the parishioners.129 Fleetwood’s government gifted Edward Veal a state salary in February 1655.130 Edward Veal was already involved in choosing godly ministers for churches in the area.131 Only Samuel Cox came from England in November 1655, by which time Henry Cromwell had arrived in Dublin.

Notes 1 A Declaration of His Highnes Council in Scotland, for the government thereof: concerning an ordinance of His Highnes, dated the eighth day of August 1654: Whereunto is annexed the said ordinance (Leith, 1655) 9–11. 2 Robert Dunlop ed., Ireland under the Commonwealth: being a selection of documents relating to the government of Ireland from 1651 to 1659 (Dublin, 1913) II 480–481, 491–2, 517. 3 Ethyn W Kirkby, ‘The Cromwellian Establishment’ Church History Volume 10 (1940) 148–149; Jeffrey R Collins, ‘The Church Settlement of Oliver Cromwell’ History Volume 87 (2002) 24–25; John Owen, The Humble Proposals (London, 1652). 4 Owen, The Humble Proposals 3–6. 5 Wilbur K Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England (London, 1938) 156–157n.

Negotiating  143 6 Mary Green ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1654 (London, 1886) 40. 7 Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1654 386. 8 Elliot C Vernon, The Sion College Conclave and London Presbyterianism during the English Revolution (University of Cambridge, 1999) 366. 9 Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament 1649–1653 (Oxford, 1974) 127, 130. 10 Charles Harding Firth and Robert S Rait, Acts and Ordinances 1642–1660 (London, 1911) II 977–984. Presbyterian ministers nominated on the Ejectors Committees were: Cambridge, Huntingdon and Isle of Ely; Dr Lazarus Seaman, master of Peterhouse, Chester; Mr Newcombe of Gawsworth. Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland and Westmoreland; Mr Prideaux of Newcastle, Mr Mathias Simpson, Derby and Nottingham; Mr Peter Watkinson, Mr John Hieron, Mr Thomas Bakewell, Thomas Shelmardine. York City; Edward Boles of York, Mr Calvert; For the North Riding; Mr Calvert, Mr Bowles Lancaster; Mr Herle, Mr Hollingworth, Mr Angier, Mr Herrick, Mr Harrison, Mr Gee, Lincoln; Mr Moreton of Billingborne and Hirbling, Middlesex and the City of Westminister; Dr Spurstow of Hackney, London; Lazarus Seaman Dr of Divinty, Mr Drake, Mr Samuel Clark, Mr Richard Vines, Mr Sheffield, Mr Arthur Jackson, Norfolk; Mr John Brinsley of Yarmouth, Oxon; Christopher Rogers, Doctor of Divinity, Doctor Stanton, Warden of Corpus Christi, Salop; Mr Thomas Paget, Mr Francis Talents, Mr Heath, Mr Thomas Gilbert, Mr Francis Boughey, Mr Thomas Porter, Mr Samuel Hildersham, Mr Andrew Parsons, Mr Samuel Campion, Mr Bryan, Stafford; Mr Blake, minister of Tamworth, Mr John Greensmith, Minister of Colwich, Mr Machin, Rowland Nevet. Warwick; Mr Blake of Tamworth, Dr Bryon, Dr Grew of Coventry, Wilts; Mr John Strickland, Anglesey, Carnarvon, Montgomery, Denbigh, Merioneth and Flint; Mr Steel of Hanmer, Mr Rowland Nevet of Oswestree in the County of Salop. For Ann Hughes alternative analysis: Ann Hughes, ‘The Public Proffession of these nations’: the national church in Interregnum England’ Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby eds., Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2007) 100–101, 112–113. 11 Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975) 111; Alan Everitt, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640–1660 (Leicester, 1966) 127, 225, 303. 12 Arnold Matthews, Calamy Revised: Being a Revision of Edmund Calamy’s Account of the Ministers, Others Ejected and Silenced (Oxford, 1947) 357; Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and the Civil War in Warwickshire 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987) 309–310. 13 Firth and Rait, Acts and Ordinances II 982. 14 Barbara Coulton, ‘The Fourth Shropshire Classis, 1647–1662’ Shropshire History and Archeology Volume 73 (1998) 33, 36–37. 15 Richard Parkinson ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852) I 47. 16 London, Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Minsisterii Evangelici (London, 1654) Epistle B 2. 17 London, Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Part I 1–191. 18 London, Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Part I The Preface (Unumbered). 19 London, Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Part I 1–19. 20 London, Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Part I 76–94. 21 London, Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Part I 156–191. 22 London, Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Part II 2. 23 London, Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Part II 16–20, 30. 24 London, Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Part II 32–34, 46–47. 25 Simeon Ashe, The Efficiency of God’s Grace in Brining Gainsaying Sinners to Christ: A Sermon (London, 1654) 1–2; BL Additional 4159 (19) Jeremiah Whittaker to the Lord Protector 1653–1654 fo 113.

144 Negotiating 26 Simeon Ashe, The Doctrine of Zeal Explained and the Practice of Zeal Persuaded (London, 1654) Epistle (unnumbered) 6–7, 10, 12, 40. 27 Thomas Watson, God’s Anatomy upon Mans heart (London, 1654) 31. 28 Watson, God’s Anatomy 34–35. 29 Thomas Hall, Vindicae literarum, The Schools Guarded: or the excellency and usefulnesse of Arts, Sciences, Languages, History and all sorts of humane learning, in subordination to Divinty, & preperation for the mynistry by ten Arguments A3. 30 Hall, Vindicae literarum 2–3. 31 John Onley and Dr John Bryan, A Publick Disputation sundry dayes at Killingworth in Warwickshire, betwixt John Bryan, Doctor in Divinity (Minister at Coventry) and John Onley, Pastor of a church at Lawford (London, 1654) Epistle. 32 Onley and Bryan, A Publick Disputation Epistle. 33 David Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1849) III 231. 34 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie 233. 35 Charles.Harding Firth ed., Scotland and Protectorate: Letters and Papers Relating to the Military Government of Scotland from January 1654 to June 1659 (Edinburgh, 1899) 57–58. 36 G M Paul ed., The Diary of Archilbald Johnston of Wariston 1650–1654 (Edinburgh, 1919) II 214–225. 37 Thomas McCrie, Life of Mr Robert Blair, minister of St Andrews, containing his life and his autobrography from 1539 to 1636: with supplement of his life and continuation of the history of the times until 1680 (Edinburgh, 1848) 313. 38 Paul, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston II 214–217. 39 Paul, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 217. 40 Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1654 158–159. 41 Paul, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston II 223. 42 Paul, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 218–219, 223–225. 43 William Stephen, The Registers of the Consultations of the ministers of Edinburgh and some other brethren of the ministry of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1921) I 44–45. 44 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 46–50. 45 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 53–56. 46 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 70–71; Firth, Scotland and the Protectorate 105; Patrick Little, Lord Broghill and the Cromwellian Union with Ireland and Scotland (Woodbridge, 2005) 97–99. 47 National Library of Scotland, Wodrow Folio XXVI, No 3’ Letter from Munro, Rosse and MacKenzie to Robert Douglas and ministers of the gospel in Edinburgh, 1654’ fo 9. 48 McCrie, Life of Mr Robert Blair 313–314. 49 Willam K Tweedie ed., Select Biographies 2 volumes (Edinburgh, 1845–1847) I 187. 50 McCrie, Life of Mr Robert Blair, 314; Glasgow University Library, MSGen 517/41, Instructions From the Rector of the University of Glasgow to Patrick Gillespie 1654 fo 1. 51 Frances D Dow, Cromwellian Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979) 146. 52 A Declaration of His Highnes Council in Scotland 5–7. 53 A Declaration of His Highnes Council in Scotland 7–11. 54 Green, Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1654 249, 264, 285, 288, 386. 55 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 57–58. 56 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 58–60

Negotiating  145 57 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 60–63. 58 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 63–69. 59 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 71–73. 60 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 73–80. 61 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 80–84. 62 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 84–87. 63 National Library of Scotland, Wodrow Folio XXXI, no 44, Observations Upon the English Ordinance 1654 fo 1. 64 Little, Lord Broghill and the Cromwellian Union 95–100. 65 Little, Lord Broghill amd the Cromwellian Union 102. 66 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 89–90. 67 Thomas Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers (London, 1742) IV 49, 56. 68 Stephen, Register of Consultations I. 90. 69 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 90–91. 70 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 92–94. 71 Paul, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston II 6–8. 72 Paul, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 7–13; Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers IV 37–38, 128. 73 Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers IV 127–128. 74 Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers IV 128, 557–558. 75 Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers IV 158–159. 76 Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers IV 170–171, 174. 77 James D Ogilvie ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston (Edinburgh, 1940) III 24. 78 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 184–187; Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers IV 566. 79 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 202. 80 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 202–203. 81 A Declaration of his Hignes Council in Scotland 1–7; Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers V 301–302. 82 Robert Renwick ed., Extracts From the Royal Burgh of Stirling A.D. 1519–1666 (Glasgow, 1887) 224. 83 James MacConnell ed., Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 1613–1840 (Belfast, 1840) 359–364, 400–408, 4–52; St John Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 1647–1661 (Oxford, 1921) 206–224; Charles.H Irwin, A History of Presbyterianism in Dublin and the South and West of Ireland (London, 1890) 169, 231,235, 291,307–308; Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British 1580–1650 (Oxford, 2003) 308, 370, 385. 84 Toby C Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland: English Government and Reform in Ireland (Oxford, 2000) 98–106. 85 Presbyterian Historical Society of Ireland, A History of Congregations in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1982) 676; Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 208; MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 49–50. 86 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 5. 87 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 45. 88 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 10–11. 89 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 10, 46; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland D/1759/2A/5, Notes relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fo 9. 90 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, CR4/12, Templepatrick Kirk Session fo 74–78. 91 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 47, 51. 92 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 82.

146 Negotiating 93 John Stuart Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1837) II 280–281. 94 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 206–224. 95 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 98–102; William Latimer, A History of the Irish Presbyterians (Belfast, 1902) 118. 96 Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland II 277. 97 Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland 527–528. 98 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 95–97; Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland II 282–288. 99 Public Record Office Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting 4–5, 10, 12, 51, 59, 67. See recent transcription of these minuites Mark S Sweetnam ed., The Minuites of the Antrim Ministers’ Meeting 1654– 1658 (Dublin, 2012). 100 Thomas Witherow, Historical and Literary Memorials of Presbyterianism in Ireland (London, 1879) 28; Thomas Hamilton, History of the Irish Presbyterian Church (Edinburgh, 1886) 73. 101 National Library of Ireland, 11959, Transcripts From Commonwealth Records Formerly at Public Record Office of Ireland fos 468–469; Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 99; Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland II 291–294. 102 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 37–52, 5–16; Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 206–224. 103 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/ 1759/2A/5, Notes relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fol 31. 104 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, Notes Relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fo 41. 105 Kevin Herlihy, “The Faithful Remnant”: Irish Baptists, 1650–1750’ in Herlihy ed., The Irish Dissenting Tradition 1650–1750 (Dublin, 1995) 65–71. 106 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/9, 1535–1665 Typed Copy of ‘List of Presentations to the Parishes in Ulster’ fos 19, 27. J.L McGuire, ‘The Church of Ireland: A Critical Bibliography, 1536–1992: Part III: 1641–90’ Irish Historical Studies Volume 28 (1993) 358–362. 107 Richard Mant, History of the Church of Ireland From the Reformation to the Revolution I 2 volumes (London, 1840) 575–601; Thomas Ball, The Reformed Church of Ireland (1537–1886) (London, 1886) 124–127; Walter A Phillips, History of the Church of Ireland: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day (London, 1933) 112–117. 108 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting, fos 1–3, 7–8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 22–24 32–36. 109 M Perceval-Maxwell, The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James I (London, 1973) 167. 110 National Archives of Scotland, GD154/510, Papers of the Agnew Family of Lochaw, Wigtownshire 1421–1981, Petition by Patrick Maxwell to the Commissioners of Applotment to be restored to the possession of the lands of Lisdrumbard from which he had been excluded by the sheriff of Galloway; bearing order for his reinstatement and list of tenants. 19 November 1651. National Archives of Scotland, GD154/511, Assignment by Patrick Maxwell to Sir Andrew Agnew of Lochnaw of his right and possession of 56 acres of Lisdrumbarde and the whole five quarters of lands, commonly called the ‘Agnewes Lands’. National Archives of Scotland, GD154/512/1–8, Cells rolls and other papers relating to assessments upon Sir Andrew Agnew’s lands and other lands in the barony of Glenarm, 1652–1657. 111 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/623/B/13/5, 10 August 1654 David Macghee on behalf on Lady Mary Hamilton and James Hamilton, her son to William Nasmith of Ballymagory.

Negotiating  147 112 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/623/B/13/5, 10 August 1654 David Macghee on behalf on Lady Mary Hamilton and James Hamilton, her son to William Nasmith of Ballymagory 316. 113 Raymond Gillespie, The Transformation of the Irish Economy, 1550–1700 (Dublin, 1998) 59. 114 Kevin McKenny, ‘British Settler Society in Donegal c1625 to1685’ in W Nolan et al eds., Donegal, History and Society: Interdisciplinary Essays on the History of an Irish County (Dublin, 1995) 339–340. 115 Raymond Gillespie, ‘Landed Society and the Interregnum in Ireland and Scotland’ in Rosalind Michison and Peter Roebuck eds., Economy and Society in Scotland and Ireland 1500–1939 (Edinburgh, 1988) 45. 116 Witherow, Historical and Literary Memorials of Presbyterianism in Ireland 28; Hamilton, History of the Irish Presbyterian Church 73. 117 Hew Scott ed., Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae (Edinburgh, 1848) I-VII. 118 NationalArchives of Scotland, CH2/111/2, Dunoon Presbytery Minutes 1639–1686 transcript fos 147–149. 119 Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 231; Stephen, Register of Consultations I 44–45. 120 William Killen ed., A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866) 208–213; Robert Armstrong, Andrew R Holmes and Scott Spurlock eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland: Two Seventeenth Century Narratives (Belfast, 2016) 208–220. 121 Robert C Simington ed., The Civil Survey AD. 1654–1656, Counties of Donegal, Londonderry and Tyrone III (Dublin, 1937) 122–124. 122 Simington ed., Civil Survey III 98–103. 123 Simmington ed., Civil Survey III 404, 407; Michael Perceval-Maxwell, Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James I (London, 1973) 206–207 257, 266. 124 Simmington, Civil Survey III 383–386. 125 Simmington, Civil Survey III 365. 126 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 57–87. 127 Alan Ford, ‘The Church of Ireland, 1558–1634: A Puritan Church?’ in Alan Ford, James McGuire and Kenneth Milne eds., As by Law Established: The Church of Ireland Since the Reformation (Dublin, 1995) 53–66. 128 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 9, 44, 46, 50. 129 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 9, 44, 46, 50. 130 National Library of Ireland, MS 758, Documents relating to government and finance in Ireland 1650–1656 fo 64. 131 National Library of Ireland, MS 11959, Commonwealth records formerly in PROI fo 404, 466–467. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland D/1759/2A/5, Notes relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fo 9. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, CR4/12, Templepatrick Kirk Session fo 74–78. MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 47, 51. Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 82. John Stuart Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1837) II 280–281. Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 206–224. Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 98–102; Latimer, A History of the Irish Presbyterians 1

Bibliography Manuscript Sources British Library Additional 4159 (19), Jeremiah Whittaker to the Lord Protector 1653–1654.

148 Negotiating Glasgow University Library MSGen 517/41 Instructions from the rector of the University of Glasgow to Patrick Gillespie 1654. NationalArchives of Scotland, CH2/111/2, Dunoon Presbytery Minutes 1639–1686 transcript. National Archives of Scotland, GD154/510, Papers of the Agnew family of Lochaw, Wigtownshire 1421–1981, Petition by Patrick Maxwell to the Commissioners of Applotment to be restored to the possession of the lands of Lisdrumbard from which he had been excluded by the sheriff of Galloway; bearing order for his reinstatement and list of tenants, 19 November 1651. National Archives of Scotland, GD154/511, Assignment by Patrick Maxwell to Sir Andrew Agnew of Lochnaw of his right and possession of 56 acres of Lisdrumbarde and the whole five quarters of lands, commonly called the ‘Agnewes Lands’. National Archives of Scotland, GD154/512/1–8, Cells rolls and other papers relating to assessments upon Sir Andrew Agnew’s lands and other lands in the barony of Glenarm, 1652–1657. National Library of Ireland, MS 758, Documents relating to government and finance in Ireland 1650–1656. National Library of Ireland, MS 11959, Commonwealth records formerly in PROI. National Library of Scotland, Wodrow Folio XXVI, No 3’ Letter from Munro, Rosse and MacKenzie to Robert Douglas and ministers of the gospel in Edinburgh, 1654’. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/623/B/13/5, 10 August 1654 David Macghee on behalf on Lady Mary Hamilton and James Hamilton, her son to William Nasmith of Ballymagory. Public Record Office Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/ 1759/2A/5, Notes relating to the Ministers of the Gospel. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/9, 1535–1665 Typed copy of ‘List of Presentations to the Parishes in Ulster’.

Printed Primary Sources A Declaration of His Highnes Council in Scotland, for the government thereof: concerning an ordinance of His Highnes, dated the eighth day of August 1654: Whereunto is annexed the said ordinance (Leith, 1655). Armstrong Robert, Holmes Andrew R and Spurlock Scott eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland: Two Seventeenth Century Narratives (Belfast, 2016). Ashe Simeon, The Doctrine of Zeal Explained and the Practice of Zeal Persuaded (London, 1654). Ashe Simeon, The Efficiency of God’s Grace in brining gainsaying sinners to Christ: A Sermon (London, 1654). Birch Thomas ed. Thurloe State Papers (London, 1742). Dunlop Robert ed., Ireland under the Commonwealth: being a selection of documents relating to the government of Ireland from 1651 to 1659 (Dublin, 1913). Firth Charles Harding ed. Scotland and Protectorate: Letters and Papers Relating to the Military Government of Scotland from January 1654 to June 1659 (Edinburgh, 1899).

Negotiating  149 Firth Charkes Harding and Rait R S, Acts and Ordinances 1642–1660 (London, 1911). Green M ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1654 (London, 1886). Hall Thomas, Vindicae literarum, The Schools Guarded; or the excellency and usefulnesse of Arts, Sciences, Languages, History and all sorts of humane learning, in subordination to Divinty, & preperation for the mynistry by ten Arguments. Killen William ed., A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866). Laing David ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1849). London Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Minsisterii Evangelici (London, 1654). Matthews A ed., Calamy Revised: Being a Revision of Edmund Calamy’s Account of the Ministers, Others Ejected and silenced (Oxford, 1947). McCrie Thomas, Life of Mr Robert Blair, minister of St Andrews, containing his life and his autobrography from 1539 to 1636: with supplement of his life and continuation of the history of the times until 1680 (Edinburgh, 1848). Ogilvie James D ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston (Edinburgh, 1940). Onley John and Bryan Dr John, A Publick Disputation sundry dayes at Killingworth in Warwickshire, betwixt John Bryan, Doctor in Divinity (Minister at Coventry) and John Onley, Pastor of a church at Lawford (London, 1654) Epistle. Owen J, The Humble Proposals (London, 1652). Parkinson Richard ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852). Paul G M ed., The Diary of Archilbald Johnston of Wariston 1650–1654 (Edinburgh, 1919). Renwick Robert ed. Extracts from the Royal Burgh of Stirling A.D. 1519–1666 (Glasgow, 1887). Scott Hew ed., Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae (Edinburgh, 1848) I-VII. Simington R C ed. The Civil Survey AD. 1654–1656, Counties of Donegal, Londonderry and Tyrone III (Dublin, 1937). Stephen W ed., The Registers of the Consultations of the ministers of Edinburgh and some other brethren of the ministry of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1921). Sweetnam Mark S ed., The Minuites of the Antrim Ministers’ Meeting 1654–8 (Dublin, 2012). Tweedie W K ed., Select Biographies (2 volumes; Edinburgh, 1845–1847). Watson Thomas, God’s Anatomy upon Mans heart (London, 1654).

Secondary Sources Ball, Thomas, The Reformed Church of Ireland (1537–1886) (London, 1886). Barnard, Toby C, Cromwellian Ireland: English Government and Reform in Ireland (Oxford, 2000). Canny, Nicholas, Making Ireland British 1580–1650 (Oxford, 2003). Collins, Jeffrey R, ‘The Church Settlement of Oliver Cromwell’ History Volume 87 (2002) 18–40. Coulton, Barbara ‘The Fourth Shropshire Classis, 1647–62’, Shropshire History and Archeology Volume 73 (1998) 33–43. Dow, Frances D, Cromwellian Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979).

150 Negotiating Durston, Christopher and Maltby, Judith eds, Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2007). Everitt, Alan, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640–1660 (Leicester, 1966). Fletcher, Anthony, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975). Ford, Alan, ‘The Church of Ireland, 1558–1634: A Puritan Church?’ in Ford, McGuire J and Milne K eds., As by Law Established: The Church of Ireland Since the Reformation (Dublin, 1995). Gillespie, Raymond, ‘Landed Society and the Interregnum in Ireland and Scotland’, in Rosalind Michison and Peter Roebuck eds., Economy and Society in Scotland and Ireland 1500–1939 (Edinburgh, 1988). Gillespie, Raymond, The Transformation of the Irish Economy, 1550–1700 (Dublin, 1998). Hamilton, Thomas, History of the Irish Presbyterian Church (Edinburgh, 1886). Herlihy, Kevin, ‘ “The Faithful Remnant”: Irish Baptists, 1650–1750’ in Kevin Herlihy ed., The Irish Dissenting Tradition 1650–1750 (Dublin, 1995). Hughes, Ann, Politics, Society and the Civil War in Warwickshire 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987). Irwin, Charles H, A History of Presbyterianism in Dublin and the South and West of Ireland (London, 1890). Jordan, Wilbur K, The Development of Religious Toleration in England (London, 1938). Kirkby, Ethyn W, ‘The Cromwellian Establishment’, Church History Volume 10 (1940) 144–158. Little, Patrick, Lord Broghill and the Cromwellian Union With Ireland and Scotland (Woodbridge, 2005). MacConnel, James ed., Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 1613–1840 (Belfast, 1840). Mant, Richard, History of the Church of Ireland From the Reformation to the Revolution I 2 Volumes (London, 1840). McGuire, J L, ‘The Church of Ireland: a critical bibliography, 1536–1992: Part III: 1641–90’, Irish Historical Studies Volume 28 (1993) 376–384. McKenny, Kevin, ‘British Settler Society in Donegal c1625 to1685’ in W Nolan et al eds., Donegal, History and Society: Interdisciplinary Essays on the History of an Irish County (Dublin, 1995). Perceval-Maxwell, Michael, The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James I (London, 1973). Phillips, Walter A, History of the Church of Ireland: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day (London, 1933). Presbyterian Historical Society of Ireland, A History of Congregations in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1982). Reid, John Stuart, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1837). Seymour, St John, Puritans in Ireland 1647–1661 (Oxford, 1921). Vernon, Elliot C, The Sion College Conclave and London Presbyterianism During the English Revolution (University of Cambridge, 1999). Witherow, Thomas, Historical and Literary Memorials of Presbyterianism in Ireland (London, 1879). Worden, Blair, The Rump Parliament 1649–1653 (Oxford, 1974).

5 Anglo-Scottish defence and Presbyterian fanfare, 1656–1658

Between 1655 and 1659, the Presbyterian Church structure expanded in both England and Ireland. In the North of Ireland, two new presbyteries, or meetings, were founded. The Route meeting emerged out of the Laggan meeting, and a new meeting was formed in Tyrone with a synod founded in Ballymena.1 In Dublin, the government tried to recruit newly ordained English Presbyterian ministers into Ireland but with mixed success.2 In England, there were renewed attempts by Presbyterians to provide structure to the English Church through the founding of ‘classical associations’, with associations founded in Cornwall, Devon, Cambridge and Nottingham. In Scotland, both Protesters and Resolutoners travelled to London to consult the Protector on the relationship between the Kirk and the English government, aided by English Presbyterians in London.3

Expansion of the Presbyterian church in Ireland Between 1656 and 1660, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland began to change significantly for the better. In Ulster, the Church only lost one congregation, Carrickfergus. Four congregations were re-established, but more significantly, as many as 22 new congregations were planted across the North of Ireland. The Dublin government was making efforts to encourage English Presbyterians into Ireland, and these ministers could be found in areas other than Dublin and the Pale, for example, in County Longford and Tipperary.4 The only congregation lost or ‘aborted’ by the presbytery was Carrickfergus, where the government intervened and stopped the appointment of Mr Greg as the town’s Presbyterian minister. This decision had some support amongst the landed elite, since Timothy Taylor, the Independent, was a tenant of the Chichesters in Carrickfergus.5 There were also congregations which had previously existed that managed to regain a minister in the late 1650s. The Parish of Ray regained its former minister Hugh Cunningham in 1657.6 Bushmills’s minister, Jeremiah O’Quinn, returned to his parish after working for the government and having spent three years propagating the gospel amongst the Irish in Athy and Connaght.7 The congregation at Islandmagee was re-established when William Milne became the new minister of

152  Anglo-Scottish defence the congregation, with his testimonials accepted by the Antrim meeting and a gift of £100 salary from the Protectorate which alleviated the burden for poverty-stricken parishioners.8 The final re-established congregation during 1656–1660 was the congregation of Kilinchy. This congregation was without a minister for 27 years since its former minister, John Livingstone, was deposed by the Bishop of Derry in 1630. Michael Bruce came to Kilinchy in 1657 after failed attempts by the presbytery of Antrim to settle John Livingstone back into the parish.9 In addition to successfully planting ministers in these parishes, there were a staggering 22 new congregations founded in the North of Ireland. At least 14 ministers belonging to these new congregations were gifted State salaries by the Cromwellian government. New ministers in old parishes also accepted State payment, and out of the eight who were new to Ireland, only half took State salaries.10 In total, 18 ministers out of the 29 planted from 1656–1660 received assistance from the English government. It was during this period that the majority of Presbyterian ministers received a salary from the State. The opportunity for Presbyterian ministers to gain a State salary had become more common due to the negotiations that took place between Sir John Clotworthy and the Dublin government. However, Clotworthy was only concerned for himself and the ministers under his patronage, not the Presbyterian clergy in Ulster as a whole.11 The majority of ministers were not harassed in their congregations by the government. The pledges in the Act of Bangor to prevent the Resolutioner and Protester crisis from spreading to the North of Ireland appear to have been upheld, and this allowed Presbyterians in Ireland to put on a united front.12 In addition, visitations made sure that the minister was acceptable and the congregation was well provided for.13 The Church of Ireland continued to be disestablished, and the Independents’ only centre of influence was Carrickfergus, held by Timothy Taylor. Indeed, upon Taylor’s recommendation to the government in Dublin, at least nine Presbyterian ministers received State salaries during the mid-1650s, including Patrick Adair, suggesting a compromise between both parties. However, between 1655 and 1658, there were at least two noted altercations with ‘sectaries’ – the ousting of Anabaptist William Dix by Presbyterian minister Henry Livingstone in the parish of Derraghy and a new threat, the Quakers. The Quakers began to make their presence felt in the province in 1656, but they were itinerant and therefore unlikely to settle in parishes and push ministers out of their charges.14 Henry Livingstone, together with three or four hundred men, ousted William Dix from the pulpit during a religious gathering and claimed they had the authority of the presbytery to do so. In response, the presbytery disciplined Henry Livingstone for his behaviour, and the presbytery sent representatives to Dublin to lay the matter before Henry Cromwell.15 Clearly, the Presbyterians were keen to placate the government and keen to display civility and order in the behaviour of its members. When looking at the province as a whole, it is noticeable that those ‘new’ congregations, where a minister was newly called and settled, were

Anglo-Scottish defence  153 concentrated in six areas of the province: on the Derry/Tyrone/Donegal borders, the north Antrim coast and north west of the town of Antrim, south west County Down, County Armagh and south Tyrone. With the exception of County Armagh, they were in areas where Presbyterian Church government had been fully established and therefore represented a growth in the existing structure. More remarkable was County Armagh, where only one Presbyterian minister had previously been called to the county prior to the 1650s. Therefore, the founding of multiple congregations was a new development.16 Immigration continued to play a key role, as John Livingstone noted when he visited in the 1650s: ‘I did not find above two or three families, nor above ten or twelve persons, that had been in that paroch when I was there; so great ane change had the Rebellion

Figure 5.1  The Ulster Presbyterian Church, 1654–1660

154  Anglo-Scottish defence and devastation brought, that almost all were new inhabitants’.17 In fact, it appears to be this major influx of new people which dissuaded John Livingstone to settle in the parish, as building a new relationship with the congregation would have been a difficult one.18 By 1659, the Scots were so dominant in Ulster that the London Merchant Company was ordered by the government to make sure that they will not make any grant or estate of the premises unto any person of the Scottish nation other than to such persons only of that nation to whom they have formerly granted estates, or who have been for divers years already past resident and inhabiting upon the same and are of honest conversation and well disposed to the present government, without special licence of his highness the Lord Protector.19 There were a great number of ports on the west coast of Scotland trading with Ireland, particularly Stranraer, where many passengers crossed back and forth to Ireland.20 In the case of Armagh, three new Presbyterian congregations were established at Tanderagee, Markethill and Kilmore. Circumstantial evidence would indicate that the establishment of the congregation at Tanderagee was due to the influence of new landowners in the area and internal migration within Ulster. Lieutenant Thomas Ball, who already had estates in Derry, acquired land in Tanderagee.21 If Scottish immigration to Ulster was so rapid and extensive, it is probable that some of the Derry landowners moved their tenants from the lands in Derry to their new estates in Armagh. In 1656, Oliver Cromwell regranted lands to the London companies and compensated them for the sacrifices made during the wars, making internal immigration financially possible.22 However, there were existing landowners in Armagh of Scottish origin who were well established, such as the Achesons and the Hamiltons, who probably encouraged Scottish migration to their estates during the 1650s. The appearance of Presbyterian Church government in the county during the later 1650s indicates that Scottish landowners were highly enthusiastic about replanting the area. A congregation was established at Markethill, where the Scottish Acheson family were based. In addition, there were glebe lands in the parish to support the minister. Markethill was also a parish supported by a benefice from the will of Archbishop James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, who had died in 1656, and William Caldwell was placed in the parish in 1658. Caldwell took on the neighbouring parish of Tanderagee when its occupant of two years, Francis Reddington, a non-Presbyterian, moved to the parish of Clonallan and Kilbroney in Down in 1658. The settling of Hope Sherrid in Kilmore in 1660 is difficult to explain as the major landowner in the area was English, William, Lord Caulfield. Indeed, there was already a minister established there, James Threlfall, who was still resident by Michelmas 1660. Therefore, two ministers were supported in

Anglo-Scottish defence  155 the parish by tithes, glebe and the benefice given by Ussher. Interestingly, in the census of 1659 in the townland of ‘Kilmore’, no English or Scots were listed; only the Irish were noted. There were plenty of Scots and English in the barony of Armagh numbering 430 as a whole, so there were settlers who would be willing to support a minister.23 Sherrid had financial support from the English government and took over the parish, pushing the original occupant to the sidelines. Sherrid was able to build a manse for himself. The low prices of Irish land and high wages continued to attract many Scots to Ulster. In the parish and burgh of Peebles in the late 1650s, it was noted that many members of the community went to Ireland as tenants and servants to try and improve their fortunes.24 Factors relating to the Presbyterian Church in Scotland also played a significant role in the growth of the Church in Ulster. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland continued to be seen as a church with potential for success and was more appealing than the ‘present distractions’ in the Scottish Kirk.25 Synods would often provide references on candidates’ abilities to the presbyteries in Ulster. In the case of Livingstone, his desire not to disobey his synod affected his decision to remain in Scotland.26 In the mid- to late 1650s, individual parishes and congregations made an effort to bring ministers to Ulster by writing letters to prospective ministers, or the Antrim presbytery would send their own commissioners to Scotland.27 The Kirk would not allow certain candidates to leave, such as Mr Thomas Armet, the young college minister appointed in the presbytery of Cupar in Scotland in 1657 who requested to go to Ireland in 1658, but the presbytery did not allow him to leave.28 Others took matters into their own hands. James Johnston, who was planted in Linaskea Ulster in 1655, took it upon himself to petition the government and was successful, filling a vacancy that had existed since the cancellation of the appointment of Thomas Busbech, a State-sponsored non-Presbyterian in 1653.29 Ministers were tested on their abilities by the presbytery before they were officially planted in a parish. In some cases, where the minister neglected his duties, he would be re-examined by the presbytery and put through his ‘trials’ again. Two interesting cases were those of John Coultart and Thomas Crawford. John Coulthart went back to Scotland without warning, leaving his congregation without reason, and the presbytery rebuked him for his behaviour. Thomas Crawford’s congregation believed he was not competent, and as a result, he had to pay full rent for the manse through his voluntary stipend and fell behind with payments.30 It is clear that the glebe lands and voluntary contributions continued to play a significant role in funding ministers who did not accept State payment during this period. For example, John Coulthart was given ‘50lb a yeare’ from 11 members of the parish and was to be given ‘a sufficient house, 14 ackers of glebe lying convenient neir to the church, or preaching house’.31 It is clear that the ultimate decision to settle a minister in a parish was taken by the congregation and not by any authority from the government in Dublin, and ‘none opposed the

156  Anglo-Scottish defence admission’ of Mr Coulthart. A fast was appointed to coincide with his official admission into the parish, and again, the congregation was responsible for the upkeep of the minister.32 Within the first six months of Henry Cromwell’s time in Ireland, security measures for the North of Ireland were being discussed by the Protector and his son, with Oliver Cromwell recommending that a suitable person be sent over to the North of Ireland to take command of the army, as it was clear that Ulster was not entirely secure.33 As Henry Cromwell recognised in August 1655: the Scots interest is growinge their very fast; and noe body to ballance; them; and to deal ingeniously, wee have noe body fitt for it. I doe not think you could doe better, then to send collonel Cooper, for this worke, he being ane good honest mane.34 The mass influx of Scots and their interests, which included the Presbyterian Church, was causing the authorities’ problems, and with ‘no one to ballance them’, the English interest in Ulster was clearly under threat. The transplantation of Ulster Scots had been shelved at the end of 1653 and by March 1654 the Scots in Ulster continued to be under suspicion. ‘We find by private intelligence, that both Scottish and Irish are in great expectations of some sudden change in England, which may encourage their attempts here’.35 In November 1654, Presbyterian ministers were seen by the government as part of the problem, and by giving ministers State maintenance, this would ‘be able to restraine some trouble-some spirits, which may be too apt to give disturbances to the publique peace; of which there have been some sad experience in the North’.36 A year later, Henry Cromwell exclaimed to Thurloe, ‘Our Scotts in the north ar a packe of knaves; but we will have an eye on them and such like’.37 At the beginning of 1656, the ‘Scottish problem’ in Ulster continued to give the English authorities a headache, with Monck renewing restrictions on travel between Ulster and Scotland, fuelled by the prevalent ‘cavalier interest’ in Ulster which was in correspondence with the Royalist interest in Scotland, rekindling fears of patriotic accommodation. It was clear to the Council in Scotland that Presbyterians in Ireland had to be won over to the regime. An intercepted letter written by a Royalist informant confirmed these fears and suggested that although the ministers in Scotland were outwardly peaceful towards the government, they were still loyal to the King. This same letter gave information regarding the King’s negotiations with Spain and the position of Ireland.38 The government feared the Royalist interest in Ulster would become a danger should Charles Stuart reach a deal with Spain, and it doubted the loyalty of Scots in Ulster. These reports are to be found alongside reports on Irish activities. Obviously, the government feared a Catholic and Protestant alliance, similar to the one it had faced in 164939 However, by mid-1656, affairs in Ulster had settled.

Anglo-Scottish defence  157 Colonel Thomas Cooper, reporting from Carrickfergus, stated that the province was in a quiet condition.40 But this report did little to allay Henry Cromwell’s fears of a Spanish invasion and a ‘perticuler reguard is to be had to the north’ where, without question, ‘buissie and discontented persons are workinge towards new disturbances’.41 Henry Cromwell advised Colonel Cooper to be more ‘watchful’ in his charge, and Monck was still issuing passes for Scots to travel between Scotland and Ireland.42 More significantly, the regime at this stage felt the security situation in the North of Ireland had deteriorated to such a degree that the Council in Dublin began to resurrect the idea of transplanting Ulster Scots along with troublesome Irish Catholics. The idea had not completely disappeared by 1653, and it is clear that the Council considered it again on at least two further occasions in 1654 and more fully in 1656. Although it seems as if these plans were only drawn up in rough draft and only concerned delinquents with no mention of ministers or specific landowners, it does show that disruption and dislocation were not far away.43 By October 1656, although Henry Cromwell believed that a new rebellion by the Scots and Irish was afoot, encouraged by ‘priests and other enisereys’, plots had been halted and transplantation plans were shelved.44 Presbyterian disaffection to the regime during the later 1650s must not be dismissed out of hand. In 1657, Henry Cromwell reacted very angrily to reports that the Presbyterians in the north kept a government day of thanksgiving as a day of humiliation. Clearly, the Presbyterian Church was under suspicion, as Ulster remained insecure under English rule. Henry Cromwell, bewildered and mistrustful, lamented ‘even the ministers in our pay’ declined to take part in the day of thanksgiving and instead turned it into a day of humiliation ‘by what authoritie I know not; which I take to be noe symptome of their goode meaninge’.45 This refusal to take part in this day of thanksgiving had a particular significance because the day was appointed to celebrate a missed attempt on the Lord Protector’s life. Therefore, not only was it a snub to the authority of the regime, but it would appear that by not celebrating this event, they were disappointed by the failure of plots and wished ill upon the Protector. It is in this uneasy context that the annulment of the appointment of a Presbyterian minister, ‘Mr Grigg’, for Carrickfergus should be seen.46 Unlike Broghill in Scotland, the government failed to achieve a settlement whereby prayers or loyalty to the King in general were clarified. The negotiations between Clotworthy and the Dublin government in 1654 were squarely based on the issue of tithes and the government. Despite resolving this issue, the government did not gain any guarantees that Ulster Presbyterians would stop praying for the King.47 Previous discussions between the government and Ulster Presbyterians had attempted to gain an assurance from Presbyterians that, although they would not recognise the government in the form that it took, they would live in peace under the regime and not encourage armed insurrection. Therefore, the presbytery could turn days of thanksgiving into days of humiliation if they wished.

158  Anglo-Scottish defence However, the government in Dublin was directly involved in trying to persuade English Presbyterians to come and preach the gospel in Ireland. By 1660, only a few English Presbyterian ministers had come to preach the gospel in the south, including Samuel Cox in Dublin and Cuthbert Harrison in Tullimain, Tipperary. Cuthbert Harrison, originally settled on glebe lands near Lurgan in the north, moved south because Lurgan became occupied by soldier Captain William Draper, who had gained the tenancy. Another Scottish minister settled in County Longford, William Jacque, who, like Harrison, had moved from Ulster. English Presbyterian minister William Keynes was planted in the north of the country in the parish of Camus/ Strabane at the behest of the government with the support of Scottish Presbyterian ministers.48 Faithful Teate came to minister in Drogheda in 1658 and is probably the same Faithful Teate who was a prominent member of the Sarum Classis in the early 1650s.49 Members of the Protestant landed elite in Ireland contacted the London Provincial Assembly to recruit ministers for Ireland. Vincent Gookin MP urged the government to look towards the London Provincial Assembly to gain ministers to propagate the gospel in Ireland.50 Gookin had family ties to the London Provincial Assembly and shared his desire to provide ministers for Ireland. Discussions took place within the London Provincial Assembly, and the Assembly wrote to ‘a classis in the north’. Gookin encouraged Henry Cromwell to maintain a steady correspondence with influential London ministers such as Thomas Manton, Edmund Calamy and Dr Edward Reynolds. The advantage the ‘Presbytery of London’ had over its contemporaries was that it was continually pouring forth a steady stream of ‘the choicest and sober’ of ministers. The London Provincial Assembly took an active interest in the development of Classical Presbyterianism in the South of Ireland. In 1658, when a pamphlet circulated in Ireland which declared a ‘Presbyterian’ did not require a belief in the divine right of the presbytery or the need for ruling elders, the Assembly wrote a letter refuting such allegations and stood by the principles of the 1654 Jus Divinum.51 Although no classis system was ever erected in the South of Ireland associations were set up, most notably in Cork.52 The association that most closely followed the practices of English Presbyterian Church government was formed in County Leinster in 1659, but again, it was no classis. At first sight, it may appear that there is a ‘Presbyterian’ tone in the Cork agreement because the Cork ministers had set up their association to preserve the office and role of the minister and denounce lay preaching.53 Similar arguments can be found in the London Provincial Assembly’s Jus Divinum of 1654.54 The Cork Association did have links with the London Provincial Assembly. Joseph Eyres, a member of the association, had been a member of the London Classis earlier in the 1650s and travelled to the London Provincial Assembly in 1658 as an agent from the association. Worth discussed religious policy with the assembly in the same year.55 The purpose of the Cork association was ‘for the ordaining of ministers’. In an English context,

Anglo-Scottish defence  159 this would be an indicator of Presbyterian leanings, as the classis in England put an emphasis on the ordination of ministers.56 Like many Presbyterians in England, they believed in ordination by the ‘imposition of hands’, taking their example from Timothy, who had gained ‘imposition of hands’ from the presbytery. However, there is no direct mention of the Directory of Worship as a guide, or Acts of Parliament or Covenant, only a general statement that ‘we walke in the same method’ as the Assembly of Divines. This was in contrast to the Classical associations which had been formed in England whose members looked directly to the Directory or the Acts of Parliament exclusively for guidance on church government matters.57 This element is more obvious when we compare it with the Dublin and Leinster associations formed in 1659. The Dublin Association was more ‘Presbyterian’ in tone and the closest the South of Ireland came to a classis because it shared many of the attributes shown by the Classical associations formed in England during the 1650s. Taking the association on its own merits, it was, as Toby Barnard comments, ‘committed to the care of the elect, confining itself to the English towns and ignoring the native Irish’.58 The Dublin agreement concentrated on performing all gospel ordinances, such as catechising and baptism, according to the rules of the Assembly of Divines and thereby chose to directly follow the Assembly’s example. The ministers of Dublin also pledged to oppose popery and prelacy as declared in the Solemn League and Covenant. They also intended to use the Confession of Faith as established by the Assembly of Divines for use in the ‘three nations’ and the Directory of Worship and, in doing so, they were laying aside ‘the Antiquated service book’. Significantly, the ordination of ministers was to take place by ‘the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery with Fasting and prayer’, and ordination had to be done exclusively by ordained Presbyters.59

English Presbyterianism and ‘association’ There is a tendency amongst historians to use the term ‘Presbyterian’ to denote a minister who was, in general, orthodox or conservative in light of the more radical sects around at the time, such as Quakers and Fifth Monarchists. Nowhere is this more obvious than when we come to discuss Richard Baxter and his Worcestershire association, including those ministers who came to follow his example in the mid-1650s and who set up similar organisations of their own. Baxter and his associations are commonly labelled as ‘Presbyterian’,60 but it can be argued that in England during the mid- to later 1650s there was a boom in the formation of ‘Classical associations’, and these were very distinct from Richard Baxter’s model. Associations that followed Baxter’s example were to be found in the counties of Worcestershire, Essex, Cumberland and Westmoreland, Wiltshire and Flintshire in Wales.61 Classical associations were in Nottinghamshire, Cornwall, Cambridgeshire, Exeter and Devon, Cheshire and Norfolk. The status of the other associations, such as Shropshire, Somerset, Hampshire

160  Anglo-Scottish defence and Dorset, is unknown.62 The origins of the ‘Classical associations’ differ from Baxter’s organisations in one very important respect. In the majority of counties where Classical associations were set up, there had already been, at some point in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, a genuine Classical Presbyterian presence or tradition in the county. ‘Classical associations’ had been formed in areas where a classis or compact group of Presbyters were active during the 1640s and early 1650s, such as Nottingham and Cheshire. We already know that there was an active Presbyterian classis in Nottingham in the early 1650s because they assisted injured Scottish soldiers after the battle of Worcester and examples of classes based on earlier foundations were Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. Thomas Case, a London Presbyterian, was ordained by a group of Presbyterians in Norwich in the 1620s. Cambridge University was the educational establishment from which many of the early Classical Presbyters in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries emerged. In contrast, during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, there was no Classical presence in the county of Worcestershire and no classis during the 1640s and 1650s.63 The reasons behind the formation and the purpose of both kinds of association differ. The Essex association, modelled on Baxter’s Worcestershire association, was formed in order to allow congregations to lay down basic rules of worship and ordinances to prevent the spread of heresy. At no point do the Essex ministers call themselves a ‘Classical association’ but a ‘brotherly association’ where a variety of opinions on church government were held.64 Its purpose was much wider than that of Baxter’s association which, by the mid-1650s, had decided to make its main focus the catechising and personal instruction of congregations.65 The purpose of the Cumberland and Westmoreland associations was to unite the godly of differing outlooks, to propagate the gospel amongst the ‘ungodly’ and uphold the office of minister.66 Membership of the Worcestershire, Essex, Cumberland and Westmoreland associations was open to ministers who were of the Reformed Protestant faith, that is say, anyone excluding Prelates and Catholics who held a parish in the counties concerned, but no particular form of ordination was stipulated as a prerequisite to membership.67 It was true that the Worcestershire, Essex, Cumberland and Westmoreland associations used the literature and advice constructed by the Westminster Assembly, but it is how it was used which distinguishes these organisations from their Classical counterparts. In catechising, for example, the Essex ministers declared they would use the Shorter Catechism written by the Assembly only once a year. In deciding who to admit to the Lord’s Supper, they would use the Assembly’s Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism only as a guide, and when testing the knowledge for ministerial admissions, they would use the guidance of the Assembly but ‘not limiting any strictly or solely, to it’. Significantly, they recognised that Presbyterian ordination was not approved by many ministers in the county.68 The Worcestershire agreement declared that its members would use the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism because it was ‘the

Anglo-Scottish defence  161 allowed Catechism’, but the Worcestershire agreement also allowed ministers and their congregations to ‘use any Orthodox Catechism which themselves will choose’.69 The Cumberland and Westmoreland associations used the Shorter and Larger Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly to increase people’s knowledge of the gospel. Ministers who were asked to instruct their congregations on matters of sin and scandal declared they would use ‘a short confession of faith’ which was attached to the agreement, but this was not the Confession of Faith as approved by the Westminster Assembly.70 It might appear that these associations were ‘Presbyterian’ through their use of the approved liturgy of the Assembly but there are sharp contrasts in usage compared to the ‘Classical associations’. In comparing the aims of the ‘Classical associations’ with ‘anti-formalist’ associations, few differences can be seen. The agreement written by the ministers of Nottingham, like the Worcestershire agreement, stated that their purpose was to promote ‘a union of churches’ for the spreading of the gospel and the more ‘orderly’ administration of ordinances and sacraments, such as the Lord’s Supper and baptism.71 Likewise, the purpose of the Cornwall Classical association was to allow ministers to come together for ‘mutual assistance’ and for advice on the propagation of the Gospel.72 The aim of Cambridgeshire ministers was to ‘instruct all under our charge in the fundamental points of religion’.73 This was to be done primarily by catechising. The Norfolk association was very similar in its aims, with catechising aiming to ‘give a little check to that torrent of confusion’, a description of the religious establishment in the late 1650s.74 The ministers of Exeter pledged to promote a hardworking and conscientious ministry along with the vague statements and pledges for ‘the right ordering of congregacons & the promoting of purity and peace in the church of Christ’.75 They pledged to uphold the office of the minister to prevent the spreading of error through the catechising of congregations and the ordination of new ministers.76 However, if we analyse the membership and strict ways in which the Westminster church liturgy was used, the true differences between the organisations can be seen pointing to a Classical Presbyterian revival in England in the mid-1650s. In contrast to the open and welcoming membership of the Baxter organisations, membership of the Classical organisations was narrower in scope because ministers had to comply with certain requirements for membership. In Nottingham, those congregations that did not follow Presbyterian Church government but were members of the association could not carry out the same procedures as Presbyterian members. This was because they were not allowed to admit their congregations to the Lord’s Supper until agreement with the ‘Presbyterian’ congregations had been reached. Membership was not open and equal for all ministers because Presbyterians laid down the rules for non-Presbyters.77 Nottinghamshire ministers were very eager to establish communication with congregations who were not Presbyterian and encouraged them to join on a fully Presbyterian basis. Unity was therefore to be achieved according to strict Presbyterian

162  Anglo-Scottish defence standards.78 Likewise, in the Cornwall association, there were very few details regarding admission to the membership but there was no mention of ‘brotherly union’ between Reformed Protestants of different persuasions, only that members were to be ‘orthodox’ in doctrine, which, as it later emerged, would strictly follow the settlement laid down by the Westminster Assembly.79 The Cambridge association was also purely Classical because ordination could only be done ‘by preaching presbiters’.80 Like Nottingham, ministers in Exeter wished to invite other brethren of differing persuasions to their ‘Classical meetings’, but on their own terms and certainly not in the interest of brotherly union between a variety of Reformed Protestants.81 Membership of the Norfolk association was not discussed at all in their agreement, although, like their Classical counterparts, they did not wish to promote a ‘right understanding’ amongst all Reformed Protestants. The Norfolk ministers exclusively followed the Confession of Faith, Catechism and the Directory of Worship created by the Westminster Assembly with people dissuaded from using other works.82 The Nottingham association also used the Directory for sole guidance on issues such as ordination.83 The Cornwall association, like the Nottingham association, ordained ministers according to the rules of the Assembly.84 The Cambridge association pledged only to use the Shorter Catechism written by the Assembly and in the administration of the sacraments.85 James Sharp, representative of the Resolutioner faction of the Scottish Kirk in London, joyfully noted the great revival of Presbyterian Church government in England. This coincided with a reigniting of Anglo-Scottish cooperation to defend the Kirk against the policies of the English government.86

Anglo-Scottish resurgence: the Kirk, Whitehall and London Presbyterians Both Protesters and Resolutioners had come to London to resolve differences with the help of the Lord Protector, but a key element in the success of discussions was a resurgence of Anglo-Scottish cooperation under the auspices of covenanted uniformity.87 The majority in the Kirk continued to resist English policy, and in the summer of 1656, James Sharp was sent as spokesperson of the Resolutioner faction to prevent ‘misinformations’ by Gillespie’s minority faction. Sharp was also close to Lord Broghill and the English judges and the Resolutioners corresponded with Simeon Ashe, a leading London Presbyterian, urging him and fellow London Presbyterians to support them and Sharp against the Protesters.88 Gillespie had privileged access to the English government, and Wariston feared that Gillespie would endorse a warrant that would allow the Kirk to be purged and planted at the whim of the English government.89 In August 1656, the Resolutioner ministers sent their instructions to James Sharp. He was to indicate to the English that the Protesters were not, by any means, representative of the majority in the Kirk. Sharp was to argue

Anglo-Scottish defence  163 that Scottish Church government should be practised according to scripture and the laws of Scotland: the Acts of the General Assembly and the Acts of the Scottish Parliament, which extended to the reconvening of the General Assembly.90 The Church had continued to reject English directives into its affairs as evidenced by the refusal to observe a government-appointed fast day at the end of October 1656.91 The only minister to observe the fast was Patrick Gillespie.92 The protesters who did not support Gillespie also wished to rekindle the covenanted Anglo-Scottish relationship for their own advantage. To prevent Resolutioners from gaining support from the London Presbyterians, Samuel Rutherford wrote to Simeon Ashe dissuading English Presbyterians from supporting Sharp on the grounds that the Resolutioners had sided with malignants who had abandoned the Covenant.93 Counteracting this letter by Samuel Rutherford, Resolutioner ministers again wrote to London Presbyterians Simeon Ashe and Edmund Calamy, who became part of the English delegation during the talks with Scottish ministers. The Resolutioners explained to their English colleagues that the Protester position could not be justified on any grounds because the Protester assemblies of St Andrews and Dundee convened in 1651 were illegal.94 The Resolutioners recognised that in order to counteract the Protester influence, they had to build up a network of supporters in Edinburgh and London. In December 1656, Resolutioners contacted Lord Broghill, Major John Desbourgh, who was the Lord Protector’s brother-in-law, Colonel Wetham, a member of the Council of State for Scotland, and Colonel Lockhart, an English ambassador who was married to Oliver Cromwell’s niece. They reiterated the desire of the majority that the Church should be governed according to its practices. The Resolutioners urged Broghill to reject the Scottish Council’s settlement, fearing Protester forgery of certificates.95 In their instructions to Sharp, his fellow ministers in Scotland stated that Sharp should halt the Protesters from gaining a warrant to allow minority and outside pressure on the Kirk.96 In January 1657, Protesters and Resolutioners again made efforts to gain the support of London Presbyterians. The Resolutioners reinforced their contacts with London Presbyterian ministers by using networks that had existed since the 1640s. Robert Baillie wrote a letter to Ashe and to Francis Rous explaining the adverse influence of the Protesters. Baillie stated that even English sectaries would not have the confidence to approach the English State and impose their religion on the entire English nation. Resolutioners continued to make new contacts and approached Thomas Manton, a leading London Presbyterian, to support their cause, which was highly significant, as Manton became a pivotal ally in the forthcoming negotiations.97 During the initial discussions in London in February 1657, the Resolutioners networking with English Presbyterians had provided an advantage over their Protester opponents. Gillespie commented to Sharp that he ‘had so prepossessed the ministers hereabout that it was needless for them to speak with them’. The Protesters did not help their position by attacking

164  Anglo-Scottish defence Thomas Manton, which resulted in Manton allying himself with the Resolutioners. Despite having an important ally like Manton on his side, Sharp still felt vulnerable against the delegation of Protesters and Independents. Oliver Cromwell began to doubt Protester arguments, and this gave Sharp comfort. Sharp took full advantage of the situation and told the Protector that the church was being oppressed, appealing to Cromwell’s passion for liberty of conscience.98 Throughout March and April, the Resolutioners requested the preservation of the customary procedures within the Kirk and the Protesters requested a critical discussion on ‘Gillespie’s Charter’. By doing this, both sides rejected the prime position of Gillespie as representative of the Kirk. Gillespie irreversibly fell from grace in the eyes of Cromwell, and the Protesters became unpopular within government circles due to perceived arrogance. The Protesters had also allied themselves with Charles Fleetwood and John Lambert, both of whom were losing favour with the Lord Protector.99 Conversely, Sharp retained the allies and gained the support of Thomas Manton, who was very well regarded in government circles, and this provided Sharp with access to key networks and valuable allies.100 Throughout the summer and autumn of 1657, discussions continued, and again, both Resolutioners and Protesters rejected English domination over the Kirk. Gillespie tried to save face by declaring a wish to preserve the traditions of the Kirk, but there had been a seismic shift in allies of both parties at Whitehall during this period. One of the major allies of the Protesters, John Lambert, fell from grace in July 1657 and was excluded from the government. Conversely, for the Resolutioners, Sharp made an exceptionally significant ally, perhaps more significant than the Protector himself, in the Secretary of State, John Thurloe. In order to ensure that Resolutioners were heard properly, a committee, possibly at Thurloe’s suggestion, was created to discuss issues within the Scottish Kirk. Sharp noted that the Protector would not be influenced by the Protesters as before. Whilst Wariston was well aware he was out of favour with Thurloe and sensing that their grip on power and influence was beginning to wane, the Protesters attempted to get Independents on board to support their plans for the Kirk. This was primarily based on the argument that Protesters, like the Independents, were part of the ‘godly’ minority. The Resolutioners suspected that the Protesters were using the Independents to gain power and in response Sharp befriended the Lord Protector’s closest colleagues, Dr John Howe, Cromwell’s chaplain and Dr Wilkins, Cromwell’s brother-in-law. Sharp began to win the admiration and respect of John Thurloe and the Lord Protector for acting with much dignity and ‘good temper’ whilst being constantly outnumbered by the Protesters, who were now seen as vicious and aggressive. By the end of August 1657, with the support of Manton and Thurloe, Sharp was encouraged to petition the Protector, whilst Gillespie was denied access to the Protector.101 The Resolutioners failed in their efforts to gain formal acceptance for a General Assembly appointed by the majority of ministers in Scotland. However, the Protesters did not gain any formal disapproval of their actions

Anglo-Scottish defence  165 by the English government, and the Council settlement was never implemented nor formally put aside. Therefore, at the time of Cromwell’s death in September 1658, the Kirk remained in disunity, and English authority over the church was not officially disbanded.102

Notes 1 John Stuart Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1837) II 289. 2 Thomas Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers (London, 1742) V 353. 3 Frances D Dow, Cromwellian Scotland (London, 1979) 207–209. 4 James MacConnell ed., Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 1613–1840 (Belfast, 1840) 4–52. 5 Presbyterian Historical Society of Ireland, A History of Congregations in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1982). 273; MacConnell ed., Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 37; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1618/15/2/1, Lease From the Earl of Donegall to Timothy Taylor. 6 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 10. 7 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 48. 8 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 45; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting fo 60. See transcription Mark S Sweetham, Minuites of the Antrim Meeting 1654–1658 (Dublin, 2012). 9 Presbyterian Historical Society of Ireland, A History of Congregations 558: William Tweedie ed., Select Biographies I (Edinburgh, 1845) 187–189. 10 MacConnell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 4–52; St John Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 1647–1660 (Oxford, 1921) 206–227. 11 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 99; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, T/780/1 1656–1811, Extracts from the Commonwealth books, chancery bills, Southwell MSS, Irish civil correspondence, prerogative wills, Dublin grants, Carte papers etc . . . fos 4, 16, 27. National Library Ireland, MS 11959, Commonwealth records formerly in PROI fos 468–470. 12 Reid, History of the Presbyterians in Ireland II 270–337; William Killen ed., A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866) 222–239; Robert Armstrong and Andrew R Holmes eds., Presbyterian History in Ireland: Two Seventeenth Century Narratives (Belfast, 2015) 221–227. 13 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting fos 155–167. 14 Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland II 300–303; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/5, Notes relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fos 29, 123. 15 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 137–138. 16 S R Jones, ‘Presbyterianism in County Armagh’ in A J Hughes and W Nolan eds., Armagh: History and Society: Interdisciplinary Essays on the History of an Irish County (London, 2001) 696. 17 Tweedie, Select Biographies I 187–188. 18 Tweedie, Select Biographies I 188. 19 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, T/656/2, Records of the Merchant Taylors Company and Irish Society fos 63–64. 20 James D Marwick ed., ‘Report of Thomas Tucker Upon the Settlement of the Revenues of Excise and Customs in Scotland A.D. MDCLVI’ Miscellany of Scottish Burgh Records Society (Glasgow, 1880) 26–28.

166  Anglo-Scottish defence 21 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1854/1/8, Book of Survey and Distribution Co’s Monaghan and Armagh fo 5. 22 H O’ Sullivan,‘Land Confiscations and Plantations in the County of Armagh during the English Commonwealth and Restoration periods, 1650 to 1680’ in Hughes and Nolan eds., Armagh: History and Society 357–358, 361–362; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland D/ 1759/2A/6, Mss Notes on Ulster, the Scottish Settlers and Presbyterianism fo 67. 23 R.J Hunter, ‘County Armagh: A map of plantation, c 1610’ Hughes and Nolan eds., Armagh: History and Society 279–280; Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 220; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1854/1/8, Survey and Distribution Monaghan and Armagh fo 29; Seamus Pender ed. Census of Ireland c.1659 (Dublin, 1912). 26; Representative Church Body Library Dublin, GS.2/7/3/28, Inquisitions of the parishes of County Armagh and County Kildare fos. 11 14–16, 23, 26–27. 24 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/5, Notes Relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fos 66, 71. 25 Tweedie, Select Biographies I 187. 26 Tweedie, Select Biographies I 187–188. 27 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting fos. 69, 76–77, 84, 94–95, 116, 122 129, 155, 213, 218; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/5, Notes relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fo 263. 28 National Archives of Scotland, GD26/10/2/10A, Papers of the Leslie Family, Earls of Leven and Melville. Note-book of Mr William Scott and Mr John Makgill [MacGill] fos 9–11. 29 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 208; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland D/1759/2A/5 1635–1882, Notes Relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fos 2, 4, 11. 30 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting fos 132–133, 141–143, 193. 31 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting fos 68, 76, 86, 120 157. 32 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting fos 109, 124, 154. 33 Thomas Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers (London, 1742) I 725–726. 34 Birch, Thurloe State Papers III 744. 35 Birch, Thurloe State Papers III 196. 36 Birch Thurloe State Papers II 733. 37 Birch. Thurloe State Papers IV 198. 38 Archibald Anderson, Cosmo Innes and Thomas Thomson eds., The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland 1124–1707 (Edinburgh, 1884) VI part II 904, 900; National Library of Ireland, MS 11691, Transcripts From the Commonwealth records formerly in PROI fo 137. 39 Birch, Thurloe State Papers IV 374, 447, 483. 40 Birch, Thurloe State Papers V 229. 41 Birch, Thurloe State Papers V 348 42 Birch, Thurloe State Papers V 348, 301. National Library of Ireland, MS 11961, Commonwealth Records Formerly in PROI fo 136. 43 Kings Inns Dublin, Prendergast Papers 14 volumes I 497–498. 44 Birch, Thurloe State Papers V 477. 45 Birch, Thurloe State Papers VI 145. 46 Birch, Thurloe State Papers VI 349. 47 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 98–102. 48 MacConell, Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 9, 42 44; Arnold Matthews ed., Calamy Revised: Being a Revision of Edmund Calamy’s Account

Anglo-Scottish defence  167 of Ministers and Others Ejected and Silenced 1660–1662 (Oxford, 1934) 249; Pender ed., Census of Ireland 451–461. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/5, Notes Relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fos 65, 113. 49 Matthews, Calamy Revised 480. 50 Birch, Thurloe State Papers VI 19. 51 Birch, Thurloe State Papers VI 19–20; Lambeth Palace Library Sion MS ARC. L.40.2/E.17, Records of the Provincial Assembly of London, 1647–1660 fo 244. 52 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 162–163. 53 The Agreement and Resolution of Severall Associated Ministers in the County of Corke for the Ordaining of Ministers (Cork, 1657) 2–3, 5. 54 London Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinum Minsisterii Evangelici (London, 1654) part I 1–191. 55 Seymour, Puritans in Ireland 163. 56 William Shaw ed., Minutes of the Bury Classis 1647–1657 (Manchester, 1896) II 177, 181, 191. 57 Shaw, Minuites of the Bury Classis 171, 182, 187, 195, 199–200. 58 Toby Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland: English Government and Reform in Ireland 1649–1660 (Oxford, 2000) 129. 59 The Agreement and Resolution of the ministers of Christ Associated within the City of Dublin (Dublin, 1659). 1–14. 60 Ann Hughes, ‘The Public Profession of These Nations’ in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby eds., Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006) 108–109. 61 Richard Baxter, Reliquae Baxterianae (London, 1696) 162–167. 62 William Shaw, History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth 1640–1660 (London, 1900) II 440–456; The Agreement of the Associated minsters and churches of the counties of Cumberland and Westmerland (London, 1656) 1–59; The Agreement of the Associated Ministers In the County of Norfolk (London, 1659) 1–50; Agreement of the Ministers of the County of Essex (London, 1658) 1–33; The Agreement of divers Minisers of Christ in the County of Worcester (London, 1656) 1–42. 63 Patrick Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967) 21, 50–51, 52, 60–61, 73, 112, 122, 128, 129, 130, 133–134, 136, 139–145, 174, 209, 222, 226–227, 233; Matthews, Calamy Revised 104; Bulstode Whitelocke, Memorials of English Affairs from the beginning of the reign of Charles the first to the happy restauration of Charles the Second (Oxford, 1853) III 372; Richard Parkinson ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852) I 46; Richard Parkinson ed., The Life of Adam Martindale (Manchester, 1845) 112. 64 Agreement of the ministers of the Country of Essex 1–33. 65 Agreement of ministers in the County of Worcester 1–11. 66 Agreement of Ministers and Churches of the Counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland (London, 1656) 2–4, 27, 33 35,55. 67 Agreement of Ministers of Westmoreland and Cumberland 3, 18–19, 21–22; Agreement of ministers in the County of Worcester 4; Agreement of Ministers of the Country of Essex Preface, 1–2. 68 Agreement of Ministers of the County of Essex 2, 6, 20–21. 69 Agreement of ministers Christ in the County of Worcester 6, 13. 70 Agreement of the Ministers and Churches of the Counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland 5, 7–11, 47. 71 Shaw, Bury Classis Minutes II 153–154, 159. 72 Shaw, Bury Classis Minuites II 175. 73 Shaw, Bury Classis Minuties II 193. 74 Agreement of the Ministers in the County of Norfolk A3.

168  Anglo-Scottish defence 75 R N Worth, ‘Puritanism in Devon and the Exeter Assembly’ Transactions of the Devon Association Volume 9 (1887) 279. 76 Worth, ‘Puritanism in Devon and the Exeter Assembly’ 280. 77 Shaw, Bury Classis Minutes II 155, 161–162. 78 Shaw, Bury Classis Minuites II 163–164. 79 Shaw, Bury Classis Minutes II 187. 80 Shaw, Bury Classis Minuites II 199. 81 Worth, ‘Puritanism in Devon and the Exeter Assembly’283–286. 82 The Agreement of the Ministers in the County of Norfolk A 3, C, 22. 83 Shaw, Bury Classis Minutes II 154–155. 84 Shaw, Bury Classis Minuites II 182, 187. 85 Shaw, Bury Classis Minuties II 193, 195–196, 199–200. 86 William Stephen ed., Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh and Some Other Brethren of the Ministry (Edinburgh, 1921) II 127. 87 Florance N McCoy, Robert Baillie and the Second Scots Reformation (Berkley, 1974) 189–199; F Dow, Cromwellian Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979) 207–210. 88 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 210–214. 89 James D Ogilvie ed., The Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston (Edinburgh, 1911) III 42, 44. 90 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 204–210. 91 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 215–217, 224–228, 230. 92 Thomas McCrie ed., The Life of Robert Blair, Minister of St Andrews, Containing His Autobiography From 1593 to 1636: With Supplement to His Life and Continuation of the History of the Times to 1680 (Edinburgh, 1848) 330. 93 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 231–232. 94 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 236–239. 95 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 240–265. 96 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 265–271. 97 Stephen, Register of Consultations I 276–287; David Laing ed., The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC. LXII (Edinburgh, 1841) III 325–326, 328–334. 98 Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 348–369. 99 Ogilvie, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 62, 63–64; Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 339–340, 347. 100 Matthews, Calamy Revised 20; Stephen, Register of Consultations II 18–42. 101 Stephen, Register of Consultations II 42–130; Ogilvie, Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 80–95; Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 354–356. 102 Stephen, Register of Consultations II 130–141.

Bibliography Manuscript Sources Kings Inns Dublin, Prendergast papers, (14 volumes). Lambeth Palace Library Sion MS ARC. L.40.2/E.17, Records of the provincial assembly of London, 1647–1660. National Archives of Scotland, GD26/10/2/10A, Papers of the Leslie Family, Earls of Leven and Melville. Note-book of Mr William Scott and Mr John Makgill [MacGill]. National Library Ireland, MS 11959, Transcripts of Commonwealth records formerly in PROI

Anglo-Scottish defence  169 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1618/15/2/1, Lease from the Earl of Donegall to Timothy Taylor. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/1A/1, Minutes of the Antrim Meeting. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1759/2A/5, Notes relating to the Ministers of the Gospel. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland D/ 1759/2A/6, Mss Notes on Ulster, the Scottish Settlers and Presbyterianism. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1854/1/8, Book of Survey and Distribution Co’s Monaghan and Armagh. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/1854/1/8, Survey and Distribution Monaghan and Armagh Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, T/656/2, Records of the Merchant Taylors Company and Irish Society. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, T/780/1 1656–1811, Extracts From the Commonwealth Books, Chancery Bills, Southwell MSS, Irish Civil Correspondence, Prerogative Wills, Dublin Grants, Carte Papers etc . . . Representative Church Body Library Dublin, GS.2/7/3/28, Inquisitions of the Parishes of County Armagh and County Kildare.

Printed Primary Sources Anderson Arhibald, Innes Cosmo and Thomson Thomas eds., The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland 1124–1707 (Edinburgh, 1884). Baxter Richard, Reliquae Baxterianae (London, 1696). Birch Thomas ed. Thurloe State Papers 7 volumes (London, 1742). Hay Fleming David ed., The Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 1655–1660 (Edinburgh, 1940). Killen William ed, A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866). Kinloch George R ed., The Diary of John Lamont of Newton 1649–1671 (Edinburgh, 1830). Laing David ed, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M, Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII 3 volumes (Edinburgh, 1842). London Provincial Assembly, Jus Divinium Minsisterii Evangelici (London, 1654) Marwick J R ed., ‘Report of Thomas Tucker upon the settlement of the revenues of excise and customs in Scotland A.D. MDCLVI’, Miscellany of Scottish Burgh Records Society (Glasgow, 1880). Matthews A ed., Calamy Revised: being a revision of Edmund Calamy’s Account of Ministers and others ejected and silenced 1660–2 (Oxford, 1934). McCrie Thomas ed., Life of Robert Blair, Minister of St Andrews, containing his autobiography from 1593 to 1636: with supplement of his life and continuation of the times, to 1680 (Edinburgh, 1848). Ogilvie J D ed., The Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston (Edinburgh,1911). Parkinson Richard ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome 2 volumes (Manchester, 1852). Parkinson Richard ed., The Life of Adam Martindale (Manchester, 1845). Pender S ed. Census of Ireland c.1659 (Dublin, 1912). Shaw William ed., Minutes of the Bury Classis 1647–1657 (Manchester, 1896).

170  Anglo-Scottish defence Stephen William ed., Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh 2 volumes (Edinburgh, 1930). The Agreement and Resolution of Severall Associated Ministers in the County of Corke for the Ordaining of Ministers (Cork, 1657). The Agreement and Resolution of the Ministers of Christ Associated within the City of Dublin (Dublin, 1659). The Agreement of the Associated Minsters and Churches of the Counties of Cumberland and Westmerland (London, 1656). The Agreement of the Associated Ministers in the County of Norfolk (London, 1659). The Agreement of divers Minisers of Christ in the County of Worcester (London, 1656). The Agreement of the Ministers of the County of Essex (London, 1658). Tweedie William ed., Select Biographies (Edinburgh, 1845). Whitelocke Bulstrode, Memorials of English Affairs from the beginning of the reign of Charles the first to the happy restauration of Charles the Second (Oxford, 1853). Worth R N, ‘Puritanism in Devon and the Exeter Assembly’ Transactions of the Devon Association volume 9 (1887).

Secondary Sources Barnard, Toby, Cromwellian Ireland: English Government and Reform in Ireland 1649–1660 (Oxford, 2000). Collinson, Patrick, Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967). Dow, Frances D, Cromwellian Scotland (London, 1979). Hughes, Ann, ‘The Public Profession of These nations’ in Durston Christopher and Maltby Judith eds., Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006). Hunter, R J, ‘County Armagh: A Map of Plantation, c 1610’ in A J Hughes and William Nolan eds., Armagh: History and Society: Interdiscplinary Essays on the History of an Irish Country (London, 2001). Jones, S R, ‘Presbyterianism in County Armagh’, A J Hughes and William Nolan eds., Armagh: History and Society: Interdisciplinary Essays on the History of an Irish County (London, 2001). MacConnel, James ed., Fasti of the Irish Presbyterian Church 1613–1840 (Belfast, 1840) 52. McCoy, Florence N, Robert Baillie and the Second Scots Reformation (Berkley, 1974). Presbyterian Historical Society of Ireland, A History of Congregations in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1982). O’ Sullivan, Harold,‘Land Confiscations and Plantations in the County of Armagh During the English Commonwealth and Restoration Periods, 1650 to 1680’, A J Hughes and William Nolan eds., Armagh: History and Society: Interdiscplinary Essays on an Irish County (London, 2001). Reid, John Stuart, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland 3 Volumes (Belfast, 1837). Seymour, St John, Puritans in Ireland 1647–1660 (Oxford, 1921). Shaw, William, History of the English Church During the Civil Wars and Under the Commonwealth 1640–1660 (London, 1900).

6 Preservation, restoration and disestablishment, 1658–1663

From the death of Oliver Cromwell in September 1658 to the Restoration of the monarchy in May 1660 England, Scotland and Ireland went through many changes. Richard Cromwell succeeded his father but was deposed in April 1659 in a coup organised by close relatives and former allies of his father.1 This was the end of the Protectorate and the beginning of the restoration of the Commonwealth. The Rump Parliament was restored two weeks after the collapse of the Protectorate and sat in government between May and December 1659. In the dying months of this republican experiment, the Committee of Safety, a council of MPs and army officers, took over the government between October and December 1659.2 General George Monck refused to fully acknowledge the authority of the new regime, and due to public pressure, the Committee of Safety was dispersed. The purged parliament was again restored, and a campaign to restore the ‘secluded’ Members of Parliament had begun in December 1659. Monck made his journey south from Scotland in January 1660, and the Commonwealth government entrusted General Monck to organise the elections, which allowed the ‘secluded’ members to be elected and returned. This new Parliament, with secluded members sitting alongside republicans, succeeded in bringing back the authority of the monarch over England and dissolved itself. This signified the official end of the Long Parliament, which was first convened in 1640.3 The Convention Parliament opened for business on 25 April 1660 and within five days invited Charles II to resume his reign as King.4 During this immense period of overturning in England, Henry Cromwell resigned his commission as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and handed power over to the Restored Rump. In December 1659, due to a purge of the army in Ireland by allies of the Committee of Safety, the more moderate Protestant commanders performed a coup on Dublin Castle and paved the way for the setting up of the Convention of Ireland and calling for the restoration of the monarchy. In Scotland, there was very little change in the government under Richard Cromwell, but, with the downfall of the Protectorate, there was a collapse of the executive in Scotland. Furthermore, the Council of State folded, and the supreme judicatories in Scotland did not function, leaving JPs to administer civil justice alone. The only sources of authority

172 Preservation were General George Monck and the English army, who were acting on commands from the Council of State in London. Monck was monitoring events in London from Edinburgh, and in October 1659, the elite in Scotland endorsed Monck’s plans to march south.5 During this period, three main interlinking issues emerged involving the ‘Covenanted interest’: the preservation of the Reformation, involvement in Royalist conspiracy and the restoration of the monarchy. During the Protectorate of Richard Cromwell, the Presbyterian revival continued in all three kingdoms. However, with the Restoration of the Rump and the setting up of the Committee of Safety, the Presbyterian ministry was again on the defensive, trying to preserve the ‘Covenanted Reformation’ from the sectaries. Royalists, upon seeing Presbyterians disgruntled with the Restored Commonwealth, tried with renewed vigour to include their interest in Royalist conspiracy, albeit on Royalist terms. The emergence of the secluded members and the creation of the Convention Parliament, followed by the Restoration, led to hopes of a covenanted king and church settlement. It appeared that the Covenanting revolution had come full circle, but these hopes were dashed.

Preservation of Presbyterian Church government across the three kingdoms Despite the success of the Church in Ulster and attempts to bring Presbyterians to other parts of Ireland, an unresolved problem still existed between the government and the ministry regarding tithes as a source of funding. The majority of ministers who came to Ulster during the later 1650s were funded by the State but still sought their independence and wanted to free themselves from any Erastian ties. In the spring of 1658, Henry Cromwell organised a meeting of ministers, both Presbyterian and Independent, to discuss the issue of maintenance. This was attended by John Greg, Thomas Hall of Larne and John Hart.6 This meeting went on for nearly five weeks, and Henry Cromwell resolved to return ministers to their legal maintenance and encourage ministers to Ireland. The Church was expected to return to tithes, and it was ordered that the landed elite had to pay at least £100 a year, and if this fell short, ministers’ income would be supplemented out of the State treasury. The change of government in September 1658 did not affect Presbyterians in Ireland, as their meetings continued. In fact, the meetings of the five presbyteries in Ulster were so busy that it was deemed necessary to constitute a synod or a larger meeting at Ballymena in April 1659. Mr Greg was called upon to minister in Portuma in the west of Ireland, and although the request was in Henry Cromwell’s name, it was thought be in the interest of a tenant, Lieutenant Colonel William Cunningham. Three ministers were ordered to go to Portuma to assess whether the venture would be successful, but the idea vanished, after having been

Preservation  173 overtaken by Henry Cromwell’s resignation as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. However, the furthering of Presbyterianism in Ulster during this period was going from strength to strength.7 Likewise, English classes continued to function, and Presbyterians continued to publish many works. The arguments of the 1654 Jus Divinum were again reprinted by Matthew Poole in 1658 at the request of the London Provincial Assembly, arguing for the establishment of an ordained ministry and the divine right of Presbyterian Church government. Henry Newcome hoped that Presbyterians would keep the faith.8 After the death of Oliver Cromwell, the first test placed before the Kirk in Scotland was a fast for Richard Cromwell on 23 September 1658. As Nicoll notes, the ‘englishes heir and at Leith’ kept the fast and several sermons were preached, but all were preached by English ministers. Therefore, the Kirk continued its previous policy of only taking part in solemn days of thanksgiving, or fasts, only if they had been authorised by the Church. Any attempt by the English state ‘to call the tune’ had been politely and quietly declined by the presbyteries.9 The Protesters and Resolutioners were still opposed to each other, but the ministers now openly criticised Oliver Cromwell’s policy of favouring Patrick Gillespie, and the influence of Gillespie still continued to be exercised over the presbytery of Glasgow. Many regarded his stipend of £500 too excessive and his sole authority over the planting of vacant parishes under the care of the University of Glasgow too overbearing.10 As the regime passed from a Protectorate to a Restored Commonwealth, Baillie lamented Gillespie’s newfound favour with the Restored Commonwealth and the resurgence of sectaries and plans for an English Committee for the planting and purging of ministers.11 To fully understand the relationship between the Kirk and various English governments during this period, it is necessary to look at events through the eyes of two major figures of the Covenanted Interest, the Resolutioner representative in London, James Sharp, and the Protester, Archibald Johnston of Wariston. Wariston became a Member of Parliament and later Chairman of the Committee of Safety. After the death of Oliver Cromwell, James Sharp was ordered to stay in London, and in February 1659, Sharp’s instructions were relayed to him from Edinburgh. He was also asked to persuade the English government to govern the Kirk by its own ecclesiastical laws, including acts passed by the Scottish Parliament regarding planting and teinds.12 Archibald Johnston, Lord Wariston, regarded Richard Cromwell’s accession as a new beginning for the ‘Covenanted interest’ in the three kingdoms. Oliver Cromwell died on 3 September 1658, the anniversary of the battles of Dunbar and Worcester, and in Wariston’s eyes this was a sign of a new turn of events, like the years 1638 and 1645, whereby it would herald the resurgence of the ‘Covenanted interest’. After a period of soul searching, Wariston accepted an offer to sit in the English Parliament, taking part in the day of thanksgiving to celebrate the succession of the new Protector.

174 Preservation Wariston found it necessary to ‘consider God calls to me and wherto but to glorifye and injoye Him, let that be the designe of my heart’.13 In the parliament of Richard Cromwell Presbyterianism, as the national Church of the three kingdoms, was given serious consideration. According to Sharp, Richard Cromwell favoured Presbyterians. Within the first eight weeks of Richard’s rule, Dr Edward Reynolds capitalised on the situation and handed in a petition calling for a revival of the Solemn League and Covenant. During Richard’s Parliament, the Solemn League and Covenant

Figure 6.1  Presbyterian Church Government in the Three Kingdoms, c.1659

Preservation  175 and the Confession of Faith became subjects of debate, and even the idea of an Assembly of Divines reappeared. The Anglo-Scottish liturgy was again published by the English press.14 Wariston was seeking to put the Solemn League and Covenant back on the agenda, preparing for events to turn in the Protesters’ favour leading to the Covenant’s renewal in England and Ireland.15 By March 1659, the Republicans were beginning to wield their influence over Parliament to the horror of Sharp and other coreligionists. Alarmingly, Sir Henry Vane declared that the Covenant was outdated and should be dismissed. Sharp responded by contacting his English Presbyterian allies, but, disappointingly, found his allies less determined, and the Independents in Parliament actively blocked any attempt to establish the Westminster Confession.16 Influential people acquainted with the debates in Parliament suggested that an Assembly of Divines might be reconvened to discuss religious matters. The Directory of Worship, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms and the Confession of Faith were all given official approval, despite Independent opposition. However, there was a significant loophole. Although the Westminster Confession of Faith would be given official sanction by the government, the clauses regarding the form of church government could be disregarded. In response, Argyll backed a proposal for an Assembly of Divines which could preserve the Church in Scotland.17 Plans were made to send a petition to Parliament from the synods of Argyll, Glasgow, Dumfries and Galloway against toleration, but appealing directly to the English government was frowned upon.18 Wariston began to feel uncomfortable about his own position in London, seeing it as vanity. He wished that God would guide the Army Council at Wallingford House and, although uncomfortable with the new regime, he recognised providence in its establishment and any potential offers of employment. Argyll feared Wariston’s employment would put Wariston in ‘snaires’ because of the ‘looseness’ of the regime on issues of religion. However, Wariston believed that he could resist temptations as he sought employment to carry on God’s work, and the change of government would give the Scottish Protesters another chance to fulfil God’s will.19 It was clear to Wariston that this was the right path to choose, and his position in the Council of State was a reward from God for trying to protect Scotland from liberty of conscience. He became Head of the Council of State in England and declared ‘poor Wariston, a stranger brought into it without my hand’ but feared he would be corrupted by the ungodly Independents and army officers.20 As Head of the Council of State, Wariston tabled a motion to exclude Scotland from liberty of conscience, but this failed.21 Thereafter, Wariston felt more reluctant about his position, feeling he was now executing edicts he did not agree with. This coincided with a growing feeling of guilt and a fear of liberty of conscience, especially the resurgence in Anabaptisim and Quakerism, but he felt strongly that Presbyterians would unite in defence of tithes and the ministry.22 These feelings only increased when he was appointed to work for a subcommittee of the Committee of Safety in

176 Preservation November 1659. Wariston engaged in debates with Bulstrode Whitelocke and the staunch republican Edmund Ludlow. Wariston, embedded in the Covenants and the settlement of the Westminster Assembly, was openly challenged by army officers and English parliamentarians who looked towards the English army agreements, especially the Agreement of the People, which directly opposed the Solemn League and Covenant. Despite heavy opposition, Wariston made an appeal to Dr John Owen for the renewal of the Covenant. This was ignored, and so when the Long Parliament was recalled, Wariston was relieved.23 During the period of the Restored Commonwealth and the Committee of Safety, Sharp was fighting a different battle on behalf of the Kirk and the Covenant. Like Baillie, he was fully aware that Gillespie would be in the ascendancy and placing Protesters in high positions with the ‘charter’ back on the agenda. Gillespie still continued to use the charter in the Synod of Glasgow and wanted to extend it to the rest of Scotland. Sharp felt excluded from the inner circles of the Republican government and could do nothing to stop the Protesters’ plans. However, with Wariston in places of public importance, Sharp felt assured that Wariston would continue to successfully oppose Gillespie.24

A Presbyterian conspiracy? Booth’s Rebellion and Royalist resistance in the three kingdoms The second major resurgence of Royalist conspiracy took place between May and December 1659 during the period of the Restored Rump and the Committee of Safety. Its high point came in August in the shape of Booth’s Rebellion. This rebellion has often been seen as ‘Presbyterian’ by many historians but devoid of a full explanation as to why this should be the case.25 It was clear that the rebellion in Cheshire was not the only insurrection planned in August 1659, as it was merely one of a number of disturbances planned to take place all over England. As in 1655, the insurrections were planned in areas where a form of Presbyterian Church government was established: Cheshire, Lancashire, Shropshire and North Wales, all of which were seen as problem areas.26 The government feared patriotic accommodation between Scottish Royalists and Covenanters who would join with conspirators in Lancashire.27 There were also threats from Ireland, including potential links between Presbyterians and Scottish Royalists, culminating in the Protestant coup in December 1659.28 It is clear that in the six weeks before Booth’s Rebellion, the government knew something was afoot. It was suspected that it would come from the direction of the Highlands, as Royalist meetings had been broken up by Cromwellian troops. In Gloucestershire, some Royalists were apprehended for fear of a disturbance. No Presbyterian ministers were involved, and all indications were that the government considered it a strictly Royalist affair.29 Booth’s Rebellion reignited fears of a patriotic accommodation

Preservation  177 between Royalists and Presbyterians. After Booth’s Rebellion failed on 1 August 1659, Sir George Booth had been chased to Warrington by government forces. In response, he sent his declaration to all parishes in the area. According to the London press, ‘the Ministers who made use of it make sheep indeed of their Parishioners’. The Publick Intelligencer declared it was a Presbyterian war, thereby accusing the Presbyterian ministry of encouraging disaffection to the government.30 But to what extent was it a truly Presbyterian rebellion? In the following week, there was a rising amongst some of the Shropshire gentry in favour of the King, but there was no mention of any Presbyterian ministers getting involved. Two weeks after Booth’s Rebellion, discovery was made of a planned Royalist rising in Nottingham, with no mention of the Classis. All the rebels wished for was a ‘free parliament and religion’ but did not define which religion it should be, although there was a regiment of men with a banner which declared for ‘king and Covenant’.31 There was also a rising in Derby. There was no particular mention of the Wirksworth Classis, but it came to light a few days later that Mr Seddon of Langley and Mr Cranwell were involved along with the neighbouring ministers, and only Mr Sweetman stayed in his house believing the rebels to be misguided.32 This confirmed fears that an alliance existed between Royalists and Presbyterians. Booth had marched into Lancashire where he received support from gentry and ministers and the Manchester Classis with Harrison, Angier, Herrick, Newcome and Gee, who were seen as agitators using the pulpit to promote unrest in the county along with leading Royalist gentry.33 In Ireland, Sir Arthur Forbes was arrested due his former actions as Royalist agent for Glencairn. Events in Lancashire did not make Presbyterian ministers in Ireland suspected troublemakers, and William Keyes, a member of the Cheshire association, was appointed to the parish of Strabane in Tyrone a month after the rebellion.34 However, the fear of patriotic accommodation in Lancashire had spread into Scotland. By the end of August 1659, General George Monck was strengthening garrisons in Scotland and arresting former members of the Royalist and Covenanting armies, including Lieutenant-General David Leslie and Sir James Lumsden. Monck also feared a Covenanted rebellion in the Highlands under the Marquis of Argyll. No one was allowed to carry arms except those thought to be well disposed towards the English government. English correspondents feared that meetings of the Glasgow Provincial Assembly being held in Edinburgh were convened to raise money and support for Charles II.35 The fear of patriotic accommodation between Presbyterians and Royalists in Scotland was reflected in the relationship between the Commonwealth and two prominent Scottish Presbyterian figures: James Sharp and Archibald Johnston, Lord Wariston. James Sharp was under suspicion for encouraging conspiracy against the regime. This was based only on the grounds of his ongoing correspondence with Presbyterians in Scotland and London. There were rumours that Sharp had been in correspondence with

178 Preservation the English Presbyterians Massey and Titus. Brought before the Council of State, Sharp denied any attempt to encourage disaffection towards the government. The government could not find any evidence against Sharp and released him without charge.36 Although very active in government, Wariston felt he was also under suspicion for treachery. In May 1659 he had been included in discussions regarding threats to the government, mainly because, at this point, any strike against the regime was thought to be coming from a strictly Royalist direction. However, by August, he was excluded from discussions due to suspicions that he had a part to play in the insurrections. This was aided by the climate of fear engulfing the City of London that Presbyterian ministers, along with the City and the militia, had all joined forces against the government. Wariston was taken out of active government and given an administrative role as president.37 The government’s suspicions about Wariston were more circumstantial than real. So, was the Presbyterian and Royalist collaboration a reality? The declaration that inspired many ministers to support the rebellion does not mention the desire to promote the Covenant nor Presbyterian Church government. Booth’s primary concern in his declaration and in A Letter to a Friend is his express wish for a free parliament and the restoration of the Long Parliament prior to its purge by the army in 1648. In his view, the basis of the Restored Rump was illegal because its establishment was based on the shaky foundations of an army purge,38 but in his Express, Booth actively declared against a firm establishment of a Presbyterian Church in England and a Covenanted alliance with Scotland by stating: that every English-man may be Protected and Secured in his Religion, Liberty and Property; and although it may be suggested, that we intend to introduce Percecution for Conscience, into the Land again, we doe hereby (in the presence of Almighty God) Protest and Declare against all Coercive power in matters of Religion . . . we will endeavour to the hazard of our Blood and Fortunes the Freedom and Protection of all Virtuious and Religious People, by what Name soever differed from Us, equall with our Selves: And that no Forraign or other Authority save only the Civil will be exercised in England.39 A published critique attacked Booth’s lack of ‘Presbyterian’ credentials on the grounds that Booth encouraged people to follow their conscience, and as such, he is no better than a Quaker or a sectary and was critical of the ‘malignant and profane party’ due to the involvement of Royalists, Catholics and Presbyterians.40 However, Royalists were steering the agenda and not the Presbyterians and, as in the mid-1650s, the Covenant was rejected as a method to unite the King’s allies. In May 1659, due to the recent turn of events, correspondents to the Court believed Presbyterians could actively join with Royalists.

Preservation  179 The Restored Rump excluded English Presbyterians from sitting in Parliament, including Sir John Clotworthy and Sir George Booth, who later met with Sir William Waller. By the end of the month, it was clear that Royalist correspondents hoped that Fairfax and other Presbyterians would involve themselves in Royalist designs, following the example of exiled Presbyterians like Titus and Massey, who were planning a plot in Gloucestershire for late June. Confirmed reports were made of risings planned in Norfolk, Kent, Devonshire, Cornwall and Cheshire, including that of Sir George Booth, and there were hopes that the Earl of Warwick would also join, but despite Royalist wishes for Presbyterians to join in, there was no mention of the Covenant.41 During a month of risings in August 1659, correspondents with the Court concluded that the failed rebellion of Sir George Booth was indeed a Royalist rebellion. Out of desperation, the Court corresponded with London Presbyterian ministers to encourage them to declare in favour of George Booth. In return, they promised the Presbyterians a national synod and a free Parliament, but this was the only time the Court had approached ministers directly. Despite the lack of commitment to Presbyterian Church government by Sir George Booth, the government still suspected that many ministers were actively taking part in the rebellion. There was some passive support for the rebellion amongst Presbyterians in Cheshire on the re-establishment of the Restored Rump, but Newcome believed that those in Parliament hated the Presbyterian ministry and regarded the government as corrupt. It was on this basis, plus a dislike of army rule, that Newcome supported the rebellion, but, contrary to reports outlined above, he did not actively encourage disaffection towards Parliament. To avoid any implication in the rebellion, Mr Heyricke from the Manchester Classis did not turn up at his church that day.42 During the two days of the rebellion, Newcome occupied himself with funerals and, in the aftermath of the rebellion, church services were not held, and the Classis did not meet, as Robert Lillburne was on his way to quell the remainder of the rising. Conversely, however, Newcome was disturbed by the Royalist troops under William Stanley, the 9th Earl of Derby, who entered the church and fired a pistol whilst Newcome was giving the Lord’s Supper to his parishioners. Accusations of Newcome’s implication in the rising had come from Anabaptists, and to add to the evidence against him, a minister, Mr Seddon, approached Newcome and made him aware that he had been informed of the resistance of the Lancashire Presbyterians and that the Derbyshire Presbyterian ministers were ready to rise alongside them. Newcome was advised by Colonel Holland of the English army to inform the authorities of the matter, but Newcome’s wife persuaded him not to do so, and, unlike Harrison and Seddon, Newcome avoided arrest. Nonetheless, he was greatly affected by this and the loss of his maintenance from the government.43 Not all Presbyterian ministers in Cheshire and Lancashire supported the rebellion. John Angier, a member of the Manchester Classis, avoided

180 Preservation any involvement in the rebellion.44 His fellow minister Oliver Heywood lamented the rebellion because it damaged the prospects of an accommodation between Independents and Presbyterian ministers in Lancashire, as the Independents were false witnesses against their Presbyterian brethren.45 Like Newcome and Heywood, Adam Martindale believed he had also been falsely accused of taking part in the rebellion by Anabaptist detractors. Even though Martindale did not support Parliament, he knew the rebellion was doomed from the start, fearing that if the rebellion was successful in restoring the King, he would lose his parish. Martindale observed that recruits under George Booth did not have adequate ammunition nor supplies. Some were Presbyterians who wanted to restore a Covenanted King to the throne, and some were fighting for the King so that he could restore the Church of England and the bishops. The rebels were no match for the well-disciplined, well-supplied, united and focused army of John Lambert. Martindale actively avoided taking part and regarded the rebellion as a ‘snare’, built on deceit for Booth’s declaration promised ‘Universall toleration, either to every one without exception, to least all that joyned with them’, which to him was utterly distasteful.46

Lobbying for a covenanted king: Presbyterians and the restoration In December 1659, Presbyterian ministers in Ireland welcomed the Dublin coup against the Committee of Safety and the calling of a convention to discuss the restoration of the King. The ‘Presbyterian Covenanted party’ hoped to restore a covenanted king along with a Presbyterian Church settlement. Samuel Cox, a Presbyterian minister based in Dublin, opened the convention every morning with prayer and a sermon urging against sectaries and requested that the magistracy and ministry should work together to enforce gospel ordinances and live by covenanted obligations. Cox advocated fighting popery and the upholding of the Protestant Reformation. However, he did not discuss what form it should take, nor did he strictly promote Presbyterian Church government, although he did state that Christ, by his providence, had advocated the Church along Presbyterian lines in the past, and this would help allay the sectarian problem and called for the return of the Westminster Assembly or a similar body.47 In the convention, there was a split between those who fully embraced the Presbyterian form of Church government and reformed Episcopalians who used the Covenant as a vehicle to practise their faith without any real wish to reform. Adair noted that Episcopalians would gladly have accepted the Covenant, but only on the condition that the King would accept the Covenant upon his return. ‘True Presbyterians’ were bound by conscience to accept the Covenant as an eternal obligation, not to be changed at the whim of a King.48 The ‘prelates’ pledged their loyalty to the Covenant until the King’s true intentions were known.49 Adair observed that the convention

Preservation  181 was full of prelates, with a minority pursuing the true Presbyterian interest. The prelates and the Presbyterians were pursuing two different agendas. Sir Arthur Forbes was sent by the majority in the convention to negotiate with the King at Breda but with no conditions attached. In response, true Presbyterians, headed by Clotworthy, began to put together a joint proposal for the King from the covenanted interest in Ireland and England, which requested that the King should uphold the Covenant upon his return. These proposals did not secure anything for the ‘Scottish interest’ in Ireland but did secure the English interest through the legal system and land ownership. ‘Orthodox preachers’ would be secured in their places and in their glebe lands. Clotworthy was not a ‘true Presbyterian’ as envisaged by Adair. In truth, the covenanted interest found themselves as the minority in the convention, as only one representative was called from the presbyteries in the north, Mr Patrick Adair. Noticing this disadvantage, Presbyterians in Ulster sent one of their ministers over to Scotland to ask Sharp to come to Ireland to promote their interest. Ministers in Ulster felt the Church in Ireland had been saved from the sectaries and it was keen to promote Presbyterian Church government throughout the three kingdoms. Sharp refused the invitation, not only because he was very busy in London, but because he did not want to get between Lord Broghill and General George Monck. During the convention, Episcopalian ministers in Ulster who had owned the Covenant now showed their true colours, and their principal member, Thomas Vesey, threatened to walk out of proceedings if the Covenant became an essential part of the settlement with the King. Most supported Vesey or were indifferent to the Covenant, so the ideal of a ‘Covenanted King’ was firmly defeated in Ireland.50 The proclamation of the General Convention of Ireland issued on 14 May 1660 made no mention of the Covenant.51 In England, from January to May 1660, the English Presbyterian ministry also pushed for a reformation of the Church and a restoration of the King, but the Presbyterian ministry and its allies dropped the idea of a ‘Covenanted King’. In January 1660, the London Presbyterian ministry issued ‘A Seasonable Exhortation’, which asked members of Presbyterian congregations in London to resist the ‘sad confusions’ and religious errors which came with the restoration of the Rump. It encouraged those in the City of London and their congregations to promote order and discipline in the Church because of the ‘unparallel’d breaches of all civil and sacred Oaths and Covenants’. God was angry, as displayed by the continuous changes in civil government, the destruction of churches, the lack of discipline and the separation from the Church into groups of sectaries. However, there was no call for the English people to renew the Solemn League and Covenant.52 When Monck arrived in London and the Rump dissolved itself, thereby making way for the secluded members at the end of February, it was clear from the outset that Presbyterians were back in favour. Edmund Calamy and Thomas Manton led the thanksgiving for the secluded members. When the Long Parliament was restored, James Sharp was already in London talking

182 Preservation about the Scottish Kirk, advocating that it was to be governed by its own rules and practices. Before Parliament had been restored, the Resolutioners had resurrected their former alliances with Manton, Calamy and Ashe and now had a very powerful ally in George Monck, who had consulted Robert Douglas about his plans to march into England. In exchange for a guarantee from Robert Douglas that the Kirk would not cause any trouble in Scotland whilst he was away Monck promised that the Kirk would be allowed to govern its own affairs.53 In addition to the affairs of the Scottish Kirk, Douglas and Sharp contributed to the efforts to establish Presbyterian Church government in England, recognising both countries’ continued obligations under the Solemn League and Covenant. Although General George Monck declared to Parliament that he was in favour of the Presbyterian faith, it was not to be rigid. Douglas wrote to Monck, pleading with him not to allow weak Presbyterianism but to fully enact the religious clauses in the Covenant. Furthermore, English Presbyterians received encouragement from Lauderdale, and with strong Scottish backing, London Presbyterians put forward their doomed proposals to the Committee of Religion.54 These proposals requested a crackdown on Jesuits, observation of the Sabbath, no lay preaching and more ordained ministers to be established in parishes, the protection of Presbyterians from the intrusion of Anglican ministers and, finally, a national assembly to help coordinate and fully establish a national Presbyterian Church.55 According to Sharp, these proposals failed because the Committee was dominated by those who were not well disposed towards the Covenant and Presbyterian Church government. However, Sharp hoped that when the King returned, the King would be bound by his previous oath to uphold the Solemn League and Covenant. Sharp continued to lobby Members of Parliament on Presbyterian Church government and the Covenant on behalf of English Presbyterians.56 Observing the change of events, Protesters began to feel very nervous at the prospect of the returning King. Wariston approached James Sharp to speak to Monck on his behalf, to ensure that no harm would come to him, and he began to reproach himself on his foolish misinterpretation of God’s providence under the Commonwealth.57 The Resolutioners and the English Presbyterians declared for a restored monarchy. The Houses ordered that they would do nothing to prejudice the religious settlement as established before 1648. Therefore, they confirmed the use of the Directory of Worship and its form of Church government. Dr Owen, a long time opponent of Presbyterians, was ousted from his deanery in Oxford, and Dr Reynolds appointed in his place. Sharp gained hope from the reprinting of the Covenant and the printing of Douglas’s sermon which was delivered in front of the ‘Covenanted King’ at Scone in 1651. The Committee for the Appointment of Ministers was dominated by Presbyterians, and all indications were that the ‘Covenanted Reformation’ was going to be restored to its premium position, but James Sharp secretly feared Episcopacy would be restored with the King.58

Preservation  183 During the period between the dissolution of the Long Parliament and the opening of the Convention Parliament, Sharp continued to work hard to encourage observance of the Covenant and Reformation. According to Sharp, Wariston began to openly voice his lack of trust in the King, stating that the King would not live by the Covenant. As a result of these supposed statements, Wariston was stripped of his pension and position as Clerk Register by Monck. In addition, Monck ensured that no Protester was placed in a position of power and influence, and, furthermore, Monck continually refused to see Wariston. However, there is nothing in Wariston’s diary at the time that would suggest he would utter such words. This is further confirmed when Wariston becomes confused and cannot understand why Monck had turned against him.59

Disestablishment and the failure of covenanted uniformity Throughout April and May 1660, it became apparent that the idea of a Covenanted Reformation was a spent force in England. There were attempts to bring together English Presbyterians and Episcopalians, but these failed because Presbyterians wanted to stand firm for their own Church government and the Covenant. There was a plan created by the Royalists to bring a group of divines together to oversee the new religious settlement in England, but it was not an attempt to re-establish the Assembly of Divines. By the end of April, it was clear to Scottish observers that the ‘Covenanted Reformation’ was a forlorn hope and moderate Episcopacy was to dominate the religious settlement of England. A group of English Presbyterian ministers planned to meet the King at Breda to discuss terms separately from the Scots. Sharp’s influence over events leading up to the meeting with the King at Breda had been minimal. Regarding the Scottish Kirk, Douglas and Sharp were much more confident that the King would continue to see the Presbyterian faith as the established Church but feared that an ‘uncovenanted King’ would provoke God’s wrath.60 It was under these circumstances that James Sharp made his unsuccessful journey to Breda and failed to get a guarantee from the King that the Kirk would remain to be governed by its own practices. Douglas accused Sharp of betraying the Presbyterian interest when he was in Breda, dissuading the King from having anything to do with the English Presbyterians and the Presbyterian contingent from Ireland. Sharp only had three meetings with the King, during which the King appeared interested and favourable towards the Presbyterian ministers he had met in Scotland during the early 1650s. It is clear from surviving correspondence that it was the King who dominated the agenda and not Sharp. Sharp had few opportunities to discuss the Scottish Kirk with the King. The King promised Sharp that he would not do anything to the detriment of the Kirk, but Sharp was well aware that the King preferred the return of the bishops.61

184 Preservation Despite a separate English contingent in Breda, James Sharp had been instructed to support the English interest too by reminding the King of his covenanted obligations to the rest of the three kingdoms. However, in this respect, Sharp failed. The English delegation did not promote the Covenant and tried to find an accommodation between Presbyterianism and Episcopacy. Amongst the delegation to the King were Edmund Calamy, Dr Edward Reynolds and Edward Bowles. These ‘Presbyterians’ were welcomed at the royal court and professed their preference for moderate Episcopacy. The English Presbyterian delegation felt positive about its contribution and was confident that the King would settle the church as per its wishes.62 On 29 May 1660, Charles II entered London as King. The majority of Presbyterians in all kingdoms were overjoyed at the Restoration, despite being slightly apprehensive about the future religious settlement in the kingdoms. They hoped that the King would preserve Presbyterian Church government in its various forms throughout the country. The Resolutioner ministers in the Kirk, from Burray in the Orkney Isles to parishes in the Borders, all welcomed the King’s Restoration with ‘Glaid tyddings . . . concerning his majestyes saife and happy returne to his native kingdom and paril’, and a day of thanksgiving was observed. In Cheshire, Henry Newcome gave a sermon in which he compared the Restoration of Charles II to the Restoration of King David after the troublesome period in Israel’s history under Absalom, leading God’s people to a renewed and restored faith. A sermon by a minister in Edinburgh stated that the Covenanted ‘godly’ had been freed from captivity. However, Charles II did not continue his obligations under the Covenant, nor did he preserve Presbyterian Church government. Instead, he restored the Anglican Church, the Church of Ireland and bishops to the Kirk of Scotland and ordered the Solemn League and Covenant to be burned by the hangman at Tyburn. This signified the end of hopes of covenanted uniformity under a Covenanted King, and between May 1660 and January 1662, the covenanted interest in the three kingdoms were disestablished and detached from the Stuart state. Often simply labelled ‘Presbytery to Episocopacy’, the process was far more complicated due to a mixture of factors. The incoming Royalists had their own views shaped by their own prejudices and experiences with the covenanted interest during the 1650s. For Presbytrians in each of the three kingdoms, the starting point for any settlement, and their eventual disestablishment was shaped by needs and environment of each individual kingdom. The familiar Anglo-Scottish covenanted networks were pulled asunder by legal, constutional and religious changes. Suprisingly, it was on a local level that the bonds of the covenanted interest held fast in England and Ireland. In some cases, even legal and religious changes at a local level in England did not challenge some of the good relationships between Presbyterians and Royalists. In Scotland, the settlement was less swift as the incoming Royal government recognised that it was taking over from a movement that had firmly embedded itself at all levels, locally and nationally touching the lives of every person living in

Preservation  185 Scotland, making it far more challenging to tackle than the patches of Presbyterianism in Ireland and England.63 It is clear that the incoming Royal government were going to fully set the agenda and its main aim was to reassert the Royal prerogative. Indeed, the disestablishment and the failure of covenanted uniformity had its roots within the attitude of the royal exiled court towards the covenanted interest, and here the views Edward Hyde, later Earl of Clarendon, were particularly influential, but also the information from Dr Morley, the in-house conduit between the covenanted delegations and the court who played games of subterfuge and double speak. It is also clear that there were new ‘catergories’ in place for religious groups within the British Isles and Ireland. Gone were Presbyterian, Anglian, Puritan: it now was a clear divison between moderates who were on the side of the King and the ‘fanatics’. Unfortunateely for Presbyterians, across the kingdoms, they were labelled ‘fanatics’. Dr Morley on the 1 May 1660 reported to Hyde that he had hopes of their complance in ‘unity in form’, and on 4 May 1660, he reported to Hyde that the Presbyterians would adopt espiscopacy if allowed certain liberties. He also recommended a sweetner by means of preferement for three or four of the leaders. It is unclear if Morley was telling Hyde and the court what they wished to hear. It is noticeable that Morley did not distinguish between English, Irish and Scottish Presbyterianism despite three clear, separate approaches to the monarch. It is clear from the correspondence that there was a concerted effort to bring a small number of the leadership towards the monarch through inducement. It is difficult to tell at this stage if this was a policy to appease covenanted opinion until the King returned to London or whether it was to conform the leadership of the covenanted interest in readiness to lead the movement in favour of the fully restored Royal prerogative at the expense of the ideals of a covenanted monarch. It is clear that the King had no interest in a covenanted monarchy even before he reached London. The various delegations complain that the ‘King takes no notice of their services’ and point to the difficulty in carrying out the proposed changes to ordinations. The Presbyterians recognised that time was of the essence, as they recognised the impending change of ministers and parliament that would halt a covenanted settlement. It was noted that ‘Presbytery was Hyde’s ememy’, and it was hoped by Royalists at the court that the restoration of the Royal prerogative would ‘break all faction’ and rid the country of various religious interests, such as the Presbyterians. However, the use of the term faction was rather polite, an examination of the language used by the Royal court both in exile and in London reveal the new categories by which the religious groups of Britain and Ireland were to be classified – ‘religious zealots’ who were ‘dangerous’ to the King and his prerogative and ‘the moderates’ which upheld the Royal prerogative. Unsurpisingly, due to the pledges in the the Covenant to protect the King’s person, the Presbyterians in the three kingdoms, with the exception of the Scottish Protesters, believed that they would naturally fit into the ‘moderate’ category, but they were wrong.64

186 Preservation English Presbyterians such as Oliver Heywood genuinely believed that Charles II was deeply indebted to the covenanted interest for his restoration. The covenanted interest had actively worked to restore the king to the throne, and in his opinion, these activities had chimed with the promises which Charles II had made to his people whilst in exile. In particular, Charles II had promised liberty to tender consciences with his declaration at Breda in April 1660, and as a result, the Presbyterians were amongst some of the first peoples to support Charles II’s restoration. However soon after the King’s return it was observed that the language of the court in exile was freely spoken by the ‘high churchmen’ or Anglicans who sought to restablish the Church of England. The Presbyterians were labelled the ‘schismatical party’, threatening the very unity of the State, and were now seen as ‘unwise’ and therefore uneducated and unfit to conduct their ministry. Their activities were also labelled ‘unwarrantable’ or illegal. The use of language signified alone that the English Presbyterians were being disestablished and consciously decoupled from the State. Indeed, it was not just a process of disgardment, but clearly the boundaries of the establishment and the State were being reset, and the English Presbyterians now lay outwith those boundaries and were labelled as outlaws and troublemakers. The hostile language soon translated into law, law that was written, passed and fully applied with no room for accomodation or discussion. Indeed, legal steps were taken to prevent private meetings, including all meetings within the classical system: provincial assemblies and classes. The Presbyterians were seen as an active threat not only to King’s authority but to his subjects. Indeed, Yorkshire-based Presbyterian Oliver Heywood, like many of his friends and colleagues, were dismayed that the Presbyterians had been labelled and seen alongside the Independent sectaries, who, in his opinion, were the real threat to the state. Heywood did not blame the King or the court but their sectaries who had corrupted and derailed the Protestant reformation, who had given the court the false impression that those who wished to reform the Church of England were troublemakers. Another facet of the changes that were deeply disturbing to English Presbyterians like Heywood was the application of the law by Royalists, Anglicans and justices who applied the law before it had been approved and passed by parliament. Non-conformists like Heywood were harassed and intimidated before the passing of the Act of Uniformity on 25 August 1661. There actions were seen as illegal by many English Presbyterians.65 At a national level, the disestablishment of Presbyterianism in England seems to be a straightforward process of laws which replaced non-conformist ministers with Bishops and the Directory of Worship with the Book of Common Prayer. But if we examine the process through the local networks of two ministers based in Cheshire, Martindale and Newcome, the complexities of the process at a local level are revealed, complexities whose origins can be traced back to the 1650s. In the case of Henry Newcome, despite the legal and religious changes which disturbed and eventually halted his

Preservation  187 State-sponsored ministry by 1662, his local network of parishioners, fellow ministers and his relationship with his Royalist neighbours remained intact. Indeed, he fell back on this network for support during this significant time of crisis and change. He continued to receive support and friendship from important families in the area such as Humphfrey Booth, the eldest son of the Booths of Salford, generous benefactors in the area. Interestingly, he also received help for a leading Royalist family in the area, the Greenes of Salford, and was good friends with John Lightbourne, a leading lawyer who was the executor of Humphrey Cheathams’s will, the founder of Cheatham’s Library. Lighbourne was appointed to the judicial benches during the Restoration. Of course, Newcome continued to be supported by his fellow ministers in the Manchester Classis, as they were forced into itinerant preaching, visting various parishes on a circuit and delivering sermons inside and outside church buildings. His activities were still diverse, involving preaching, conversations with parishoners, funerals, studying and reading. During his travels he lodged and dined with various leading familes all over Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire who clearly held these ministers in high esteem. The extent of his travels and support illuminate just how well the Manchester Classis had integrated itself into local communities despite failures to enact discipline in parishes, Manchester, Stoppford, Salford, Stockport and Rochdale.66 In contrast, Adam Martindale’s experience was far more fraught and stressful between May 1660 and January 1662, as Martindale’s network fell around him, with the exception of his family and some contacts in the ministry. A key factor is that unlike Newcome, he did not have Royalist friends or a leading lawyer as a friend and associate, leading to a sharp feeling of ostrisation, disestablishment and dissolusionment. Similarly to Newcome, he rejoiced at the return of the King in 1660, but he felt that the incoming religious and legal changes such as the return of Bishops and ejections of non-conformists in parishes were less about religious uniformity under the Royal prerogative but more a means to settle local vendettas and grudges by the Royalist elite, as many of the grieviences, from his perspective, were unrelated to religion. Like Heywood, the blame for these measures is not laid at the door of the monarch but the radical sectaries, particularly the fifth monarchy men who plotted against the King’s Lifeguard. Indeed, even though this national episode had very little to so with Presbyterians in Cheshire, Martindale complained of the ‘greatest spite’ of the local magistrates who used this event to settle scores with the local Presbyterians before the Act of Uniformity had been passed. In particular, the justices were responding to the ban on private meetings in 1660, which, from Martindale’s perspective, was a wholly disproportionate response which tarred Presbyterians and sectaries with the same misdemeanours. Martindale argued that the dangerous activities which threatened monarchy did not take place in the county of Cheshire, and as the law banning private meetings is not restricted by time or geography, it was therefore a blanket

188 Preservation and arbitary ban which extended to household visits and private instruction to parishioners. Clearly based on Martindale’s experience, the ban on private visits was more difficult to enforce between 1660 and 1662. Indeed, Martindale does fall back on his networks, particularly in the ministry, and visits Henry Newcome at his house in 1661. However, what is noticeable in Martindale’s account is the speed and significance of the censorship of print during this period and its impact upon non-conformists. Martindale wrote a pamphlet in the early 1660s protesting against these changes, but it was never published at this time. It was either blocked by the censors or Martindale was so dissolutioned that he never sent it to the printer in London. It is clear that within the first 18 months of the Restoration that there was a drive to undermine the covenanted interest through printing press. The majority of the pamphlets printed in London on this subject at the time reprints by bishops critical of the Covenant. There was a campaign in print that closely followed Royal policy in the first months of 1660 and declared the Covenant to be obligatory and directly challenged the covenanted interpration of oaths as invoidable. We must also consider that by this stage, Martindale saw himself as an ‘outsider’, and perhaps censorship contributed to this feeling. He declared that he neither ‘owned or disowned’ the justice of the law; all that concerned him was that which he enjoyed: clearly conscience mattered more than the law. This hostility towards the application of the law had been fuelled by a particularly odious time with the local justices whereby under the pretence of the private meetings law, his neighbour and longtime friend fed reports of his activities to the local magistrate. Hauled in front of the judge, he protested his innocence, to which the judge replied, ‘necessity has no law’. Martindale was convinced that his neighbour had maliciously acted, giving false information, the witnesses were corrupt and the judge did not act according to the law. Therefore, unsurprisingly, Martindale felt slighted and became determined to distance himself from an increasingly corrupt regime with his conscience intact.67 For Presbyterians in Ireland, a similar process of disestablishment and decoupling from the State also occurred between 1660 and 1662. As already stated, Presbyterians in Ireland, both North and the South, played a key role in the General Convention of Ireland. On 14 May, as part of the Convention, the majority of Presbyterians in Ireland welcomed the restoration of the King, ‘his inherent birthright and his lawful and undoubted succession’. This message within the Proclamation would have been highly welcomed by a King and a court which wanted to reassert the monarch’s authority. The restablishment of Royal authority and the ‘deletion’ of the English Republic with the recognition of Charles II’s inheritance, since 1649 was something that both the Royalists and the Covenanted Interest in Ireland could agree on. Interestingly, despite significant Presbyterian presence at the Convention, the Proclamation made no specific reference to the Covenant. The proclamation perhaps signified an attempt at another accommodation, but it was clear that the Royalists were setting the agenda.68 However, it is

Preservation  189 clear when re-examining the Declaration of the General Convention of Ireland in this context that the Presbyterians in Ireland saw themselves as part of the establishment not just through the actions of Patrick Adair, Samuel Coxe and Sir John Clotworthy, but in their attitudes towards the law, order and separation, which, it was hoped would chime with the asprations of the King, Court and advisers, but again, they were disappointed. Indeed, reading the Declaration with Presbyterian eyes, of course it was acceptable to condemn those ‘great endeavours to utterly extinguish the true reformed Protestant religion’ and the separation which had caused ‘notorious inquity’ threatening law and order as the sectaries had done destroying the aspirations for covenanted uniformity. The King and the Court would agree with the basic premise of destruction but only through rectification by the restablishment of the Church of Ireland alongside law and order. Again for Royalists, the division was between moderates and radicals, stability and danger. Unfortunately for the Presbyterians in Ireland, the court in exile had already decided that the Presbyterians were part of the problem due to their disassociation from the Church of Ireland in the late 1630s.69 At a local level between May 1660 and January 1662, the changes within the law, state and religion become apparent. We have to be cautious analysing the account written by Patrick Adair, which is clearly infused with hindsight and bitterness as a result of the troubled times for Presbyterians in Ireland during the Restoration. However, he recognised the influence of the Bishops and the exiled court in shaping the King’s attitudes. Like many of his contemporaries within the covenanted interest in the three kingdoms, he was dismayed that the Presbyterians had been labelled alongside the sectaries as the ‘disloyalty of the sectarian party had put odium on others’. Similar to Martindale, he felt a sense of injustice looking at the introduction of the Bishops with a sense of moral outrage, as Bishops were ‘ungodly’ and ‘corrupt’. Even the Convention, which just a few months earlier had welcomed the Presbyterians into the centre of their proceedings, became a closed assembly, a standing committee wholly appointed by the monarch. The King turned to ‘government by pen’, sending direct commands and laws via letters and written correspondence. Thus, the Convention now reintroduced the old laws on government and worship, bishops and the Prayer book. Propgation of the Gospel was sidelined in favour of the English land interests. Similarly to English Presbyterians, there was a sense of betrayal, as the King had been preserved by God, and, therefore, the King was duty bound to uphold his covenanted promises. They were able to convene a synod meeting at Ballymena before the ban on private gatherings took place and organised declarations to the Bishops and a series of petitions. The Presbyterians in Ireland also tried to use the established international networks of the covenanted interest to little effect. Realising that Charles II was far more receptive to English Presbyterians than Scottish Presbyterians and because of Scottish efforts to faust the Covenant on the young King, the Ulster Presbyterians tried to use their postion within an English dependency

190 Preservation and sought advice and help from London Presbyterians via an English member of their group, William Keynes. The London Presbyterians, Edward Calamy and Thomas Manton, alongside Sir John Clotworthy, had spoken plainly with Ulster Presbyterians, advising they would have no success with their ambitions. The Ulster Presbyterians realised the political climate was significantly changing where they faced disestablishment and ostrisation.70 In the eyes of many Presbyterians in Ireland, the King had disowned the Covenant, and there was certainly, as with Presbyterians in England, a notable shift in the networks and support around Presbyterians in Ireland. The Ulster Presbyterians found it more difficult to contact and influence their former allies, such as George Monck, Lord Broghill and Sir John Clotworthy. Although these men would no longer present the Presbytery’s grievances to the court, they advised moderation to make them more palatable to the monarch. The Ulster Presbyterian delegation in London took the advice, very much against the inclination of the church back in Ireland.They gained access, but their postion was not communicated fully to the King. Lord Broghill was appointed a justice, thereby integrating himself into a legal system which recognised bishops and enforced loyalty to the monarch through the acceptance of a new religious settlement. Although coloured by hindsight, Adair was passionately convinced from the outset that the bishops wished to smother the ‘Covenant’ and attack non-conformists. It was painful for Adair and his fellow Presbyterians to see their old enemies, like Bishop Bramhall, created Archibishop of Armagh, and Bishop Leslie of Down, be reinstated. Similar to Martindale, Adair questioned if the new religious landscape was fuelled more by vengeance rather than the simple consolidation of the religious establishment under the monarch. In response and far more organised than their English counterparts, the Presbyterians in Ireland who did not conform continued to get together in private meetings to find a common cause. This would have been aided by long-standing difficulties of the enforcement of the law in Ireland and the Ulster Presbyterian methods of conventicling inherhited from the secret and underground meetings of Scottish Presbyterians in Ireland and Scotland in the 1630s. Petitions to justices in Dublin for continuance of Presbyterian Church government based soley on the private words of the King unsurprisingly failed. Unless the promise was public and a written document, it was hardly going to carry any weight. Thus, the non-conforming Presbyterians in Ireland found themselves outside the established legal channels and the continuance of private meetings made them criminals. The bishops stopped recognising the gatherings as legitimate and began gathering intelligence on the non-conforming Presbyterians, seeing them as a danger to the State and the King’s interests in Ireland. Unlike English Presbyterians, who had an option to enter the establishment, the Presbyterians in Ireland were actively discouraged by the bishops in Ireland to take the oaths of loyalty to the monarch. The bishops did not want the Presbyterians to take an active role in the government of Ireland. There was certainly fear amongst the new elite

Preservation  191 about the predominance of the Scottish interest in Ulster. Now outside the establishment, the non-conforming Presbyterians continued their meetings whilst continuing to pledge their loyalty to the King and their consciences, as gradually, they were forced to preach outside defined parishes and recognised places of worship. Similar to Martindale and Newcome, the Ulster Presbyterians visited people from house to house and had small private meetings, effectively defying the ban on gatherings, and continued to be a thorn in the side of the authorities. By way of contrast to their coreligionists in England and the predominately Scottish Presbyterians in Ulster, English Presbyterians by and large conformed with the new forms of worship and government in Ireland; as Phil Killroy has pointed out, English Presbyterianism strengthened with the demise of the English Republic. English Presbyterians such as Edward Veal took the formely Independent Wood Street congregation in Dublin, and other Presbyterians took Cooke Street after the Restoration. However, notably in contrast to the Scottish ministers in Ulster, these congregations did not enter into any conflicts with the State authorities during 1660–1662 and were unsurprisingly left in peace.71 It is commonly acknowledged by historians that out of all three kingdoms, Scotland’s journey from Presbytery to Episcopacy took the longest. However, between May 1660 and January 1662, the wider Scottish covenanting movement experienced a similar decoupling or disassociation from the State as experienced by other members of the covenanted interest in the three kingdoms. However, the exiled Royal court, despite forming fixed opinions about Presbyterians as ‘radicals’, left discussions with the Resolutioner, James Sharp, rather open ended. It was clear by the time of Charles II’s arrival in London that a three kingdom implementation of the Solemn League and Covenant with Charles II as the covenanted monarch was out of the question. It is largely on this basis rather than a clear and speedy change in church government that underlined and stimulated the changes that took place in Scotland between 1660 and 1662. The Court, through fear of a possible resurrection of the covenanted networks across the three kingdoms and within Scotland, did not want to antagonise or provoke Scotland into open conflict with the monarch. Similar changes did take place, but the priority for the Royalists was to reassert the Royal prerogative similar to the other kingdoms. Once the prerogative was in place, parliament would help define and reassert the King’s power by dismantling the parliamentary framework and laws which had supported the Covenants. The religious aspects were clearly impacted by these events, but they were the last to be directly addressed. However, the reassertion of royal authority through legislative bodies and the dismantling of laws followed a similar pattern to the other kingdoms, perhaps highlighting, contrary to historians’ opinions, Scotland’s processes and experiences were not unique or different in comparison to the other kingdoms.72 Like Presbyterians in England, Scottish Resolutioner networks began to significantly change. Throughout the later 1650s, Sharp, who had been at

192 Preservation the centre of discussions in London and the exiled court, now found himself ostrisised from government circles in London; indeed, no Scottish ministers were invited to these meetings. In Scotland, the Royalist labels of ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ were also used to disassociate both the Protesters and Resolutioners from the State. Indeed, the Protesters treatment by the Restoration government mirrored that of the more radical sects within England. Key players in the Protesters and collaborators with the Cromwellian regime were arrested, such as the Marquis of Argyll and Archibald Johnston of Wariston, who were immediately taken prisoner and labelled ‘as a threat to public order’ and ‘traitors’. Wariston was declared as a ‘fugitive’, and these Protesters were cast out of Scottish State affairs and society with rapid effect. It is clear that although exiled Royalists saw Presbyterians as radical, they did not act swifty against the Resolutioners, but a precedent had been set whereby Protester private meetings were prohibited, following similar lines in England and Ireland, and could easily be extended to the Resolutioners in time. By September 1660, the restoration government had fully taken control of the printing presses in Scotland and prohibiting the printing of Protester pamphlets. Again, this was modelled on similar actions in England which strictly forbade the works of the Independent John Goodwin, which had advocated the Regicide. Robert Baillie, at this time, commented upon the increasing ‘slackness’ in the bonds between the Resolutioners and Presbyterians in London. In January 1661, the Scottish Parliament met and reasserted the royal prerogative through an act of taking an oath of allegiance to the crown that indirectly challenged the Solemn League and Covenant by declaring the King to be the supreme governor of the kingdom above all persons and causes. Thus, the King that was above the Covenant, not bound by it, but furthermore, he was above the ‘private’ interest of men and above suspicion. However, notably, there was not a direct reference to the church or the form of church government. On 16 January, in a direct attack on the bonds between the covenanted interest in all three kingdoms, it was declared that the making of leagues and treatises with foreign powers was illegal. As Julia Buckroyd states, this was an attack on Covenant without explicitly mentioning it by name. On the 25 January it was illegal to renew the Solemn League and Covenant. This followed by a succession of laws in January that disestablished the Scottish covenanted interest without any direct statements about religion.73 Effectively, with these actions, the Restoration government in Scotland had thrown thousands of ministers in parishes across the country outwith the law and the State. For many ministers, regardless of the change in the law, the Covenant now was not a matter of action but a matter of conscience. Between January and March 1661, the Royalist government remained in control, promising the Resolutioners conferences and meetings which did not transpire. On the 28 March 1661, acts aunnulling all actions of the Scottish Parliaments between 1640 and 1660 were passed,

Preservation  193 following the actions of the restored English Parliament which had annulled all actions of the Long Parliment and those under the Commonwealth and Protectorate. However, it was followed by an act concerning Religion and Church government, effectively abolishing the preeminance of the Presbytery and the wider religious reform under the Covenanters. The Covenant and Presbytery were no longer compatible with lawful, peaceful and stable government. Stable government can only eminate from the Royal prerogative, thereby extending the precedence of the threat of public order to the whole Kirk. The Presbyterians in Scotland, like their counterparts in Ireland and England, were now firmly outlaws and outcasts. By the middle of 1661, the fate of the Scottish Kirk, the English Presbyterians and those in Ireland firmly rested with the monarch, a monarch neither bound nor influenced by obligations stated within the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms.74

Notes 1 Ronald Hutton, The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales 1658–1667 (Oxford, 1985) 3–41. 2 Hutton, The Restoration 42–67. 3 Hutton, The Restoration 87–104. 4 Hutton, The Restoration 107–117. 5 France D. Dow, Cromwellian Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979) 230–265. 6 John Stuart Reid, History of Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1837) II 314–315. 7 Thomas Birch ed., Thurloe State Papers VII (London, 1742) 318–321; William Killen ed., A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866) 228. 8 Matthew Poole, Quo Warranto or a Moderate Enquiry into the Warrantablnesse of the Preaching of unordianed or gifted persons (London, 1659) 1–163; Henry Newcome, The Sinners Hope as his privildge and duty, In his Worst Condition, stated, cleared and improved (London, 1659) 1–113. 9 David Laing ed., A Diary of Public Transactions and other occurrences, chiefly in Scotland from January 1660 to June 1667 (Edinburgh, 1836). 218; Thomas McCrie ed., Life of Robert Blair, Minister of St Andrews, containing his autobiography from 1593 to 1636: with supplement of his life and continuation of the times, to 1680 (Edinburgh, 1848) 335. 10 David Laing ed., The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M, Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII (Edinburgh, 1842). III. 383–384, 391, 394; William Stephen ed., Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1930) II 143–147. 11 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 395–396. 12 Stephen, Register of Consultations II 146–151, 155, 159, 162–163. 13 David Hay Fleming ed., The Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 1655– 1660 (Edinburgh, 1940) III 101–106. 14 Hay Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 174; The Confession of Faith, first agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminister: And now appointed by the General Assembly of this Kirk of Scotland to be part of a uniformity in religion between the Kirks of Christ, in the three kingdoms (1659); An ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament. For

194 Preservation the calling of an Assembly of learned and godly divines to be consulted with by the Parliament [sic] for setling of the government and liturgy of the Church of England: and for vindicating ands clearing of the doctrine of the said Church from false aspersions and interpretations, as shall be most agreeable to the Word of God (London, 1658); The humble advice of the assembly of divines now by the authority of Parliament sitting at Westminster: concerning a larger catechism, presented to them lately to both Houses of Parliament, with the proofs thereof at large out of the scriptures (London, 1658); Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, III 391. 15 Stephen, Register of Consultations II 154–155. 16 Stephen, Register of Consultations II 157–161. 17 Stephen, Register of Consultations 164–169, 171–175; McCrie ed., Life of Robert Blair 336. 18 Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 392. 19 Hay Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 106–113. 20 Hay Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 113–123. 21 Hay Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 125. 22 Hay Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 132–150. 23 Hay Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 150–158. 24 Stephen, Register of Consultations II 174–192. 25 Ruth Mayers, 1659: Crisis of the Commonwealth (London, 2004) 94. 26 David Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy in England 1649–1660 (New Haven, 1960) 254–285; John Morrill, Cheshire 1630–60: County Government and Society During the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974) 300–333 Mary Green ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1659–1660 (London, 1886) 18, 41, 43–45, 49, 50, 61, 113–114. 27 The Publick Intelligencer 22 August – 29 August 1659 690; Green ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1659–1660 53. 28 Aidan Clarke, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland (Cambridge, 2006) 68–72, 102–106. 29 Mercurius Politicus 28 July – 4 August 1659 628, 631; Green ed., Calendar State Papers Domestic 1659–1660 50. 30 Mercurius Politicus 28 July 4 August 1659 625–640; Mercurius Politicus 4 August 1659 – 11 August 1659 649; Publick Intelligencer 1 August – 8 August 1659 640–641; The Publick Intelligencer 29 August – 5 September 1659 690. 31 The Publick Intelligencer 15 August – 22 August 1659 673. 32 Mercurius Politicus 28 July – 4 August 1659 625–642; Mercurius Politicus 4 August – 11 August 1659 643–658; Mercurius Politicus 11 August – 18 August 1659 659–674; The Publick Intelligencer 8 August – 15 August 1659 649–648, 656–658. 33 Mercurius Politicus 11 August – 18 August 1659 670. 34 Clarke, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland 69; Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/ 1759/2A/5, Notes Relating to the Ministers of the Gospel fo 113. 35 A Particular advice From the Office of Intellegence 19 August – 26 August 1659 211; F J Routledge ed., Calendar of Clarendon State Papers IV (Oxford, 1932) 312–313, 338; Alexander G Reid ed., The Diary of Andrew Hay of Craignethan 1659–1660 (Edinburgh, 1901) 110; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of Leybourne Popham Eq of Littlecote Co Wilts (London, 1899) 117. 36 Julia Buckroyd, The Life of James Sharp: Archbishop of St Andrews 1618–1679: A Political Biography (Edinburgh, 1987) 42; Stephen, Register of Consultations II 180–192; Osmond Airy ed., The Lauderdale Papers I (London, 1884) 5–6.

Preservation  195 37 Hay Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 115–116, 129– 133; William L Sachse ed., The Diurnal of Thomas Rugg (London, 1961) 10, 61. 38 The declaration of the lords, gentlemen, citizens, freeholders, and yeomen of this once happy Kingdom of England (London, 1659) 1; An Express from the Knights and Gentlemen now engaged with Sir George Booth, to the City of Citizens of London. And all other Free-men of England (London, 1659) 1; A letter from Sir George Booth to a friend shewing the reasons of his engagement in defence of his countries liberties, &c (London, 1659) 3–20. 39 Express From the Knights and Gentlemen 1. 40 Letter From Sir George Booth 3–20. 41 George Warner ed., The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas (London, 1886) IV 134; Routledge ed., Calendar of Clarendon State Papers IV 206, 235, 270, 273, 275, 291–292. 42 Richard Parkinson ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome (Manchester, 1852) I 109. 43 Parkinson ed., Autobiography of Henry Newcome 109–115. 44 E Axon ed., Oliver Heywood’s Life of John Angier of Denton (Manchester, 1937) 69. 45 J Horsfall Turner ed., The Rev. Oliver Heywood, B.A. 1630–1702; his autobiography, diaries anecdote and event books I (Brighouse, 1883) 174–175. 46 Richard Parkinson ed., The Life of Adam Martindale (Manchester, 1845) 131–139. 47 Samuel Coxe, Two Sermons Preached at Christ-Church in the City of Dublin (London, 1659) 2–28; Clarke, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland 244–246. 48 Killen ed., A True Narrative 228–229. 49 Killen ed., A True Narrative 229–231. 50 Killen ed., A True Narrative 232–235; A Declaration of the General Convention of Ireland (London, 1660) 11–12; Clarke, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland 250; Reid, History of Presbyterians in Ireland II 328–329; John Forbes, Memoirs of the Earls of Granard (Dublin, 1868) 36. Bodliean Library, University of Oxford, Bodl. Carte 44 ‘Instructions for Sir John Clotworthy Knt and William Aston esq, members of the General Convention of Ireland’ fos 666r-669v; Edinburgh University Special Collections Dk. 3.30 Correspondence of James Sharp Archbishop of St Andrews fo 46. 51 Declaration of the General Convention of Ireland 5–6; A Proclamation of the General Convention of Ireland (Dublin, 1660) 1; Clarke, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland 250; Buckroyd, Life of James Sharp Archbishop of St Andrews 48. 52 London Provincial Assembly, A Seasonable Exhortation of sundry Ministers in London to the People of Their Respective Congregations (London, 1660) 1–24. 53 Stephen, Consultations II 193; Edinburgh University Special Collections, Dk. 3.30, Correspondence relating to Sharp, Archbishop of St Andrews fo 10. 54 Dk 3.30 Correspondence Sharp fo 7–8. 55 Dk 3.30 Correspondence Sharp fo 18. 56 Dk 3.30 Correspondence Sharp fo 8–9. 57 Laing ed., Diary of Public Transactions 279; Buckroyd, Life of James Sharp Archbishop of St Andrews 48–49; Hay-Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 166–177. 58 Edinburgh University Special Collections, Dk. 3.30, Correspondence Relating to Sharp fo 20. 59 Dk.3.30 Correspondence Sharp fo 49; Hay-Fleming ed., Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston III 178–180. 60 Edinburgh University Special Collections Dk. 3.30 Correspondence relating to Sharp fo 18–22; Buckroyd, Life of James Sharp Archbishop of St Andrews

196 Preservation 46–54; Laing, Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III. 398–401; McCrie, Life of Robert Blair 350. 61 Buckroyd, Life of James Sharp Archbishop of St Andrews 54–58. 62 George R Abernathy, ‘The English Presbyterians and the Stuart Restoration’ Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 55 (1965) 66–67. 63 Killen ed., A True Narrative 228–229; McCrie, Life of Robert Blair 352–354; Henry Newcome, Usurpation Defeated, and David restored: Being an Exact Parallel between David and Our most Gracious sovereign King Charls II. (Manchester, 1660) 1–7, 15, 29–32; Aberdeen University Special Libraries, MS 894, Session records of South Ronaldsay and Isle of Burray fos 183–84; National Archives of Scotland, CH2/721/1, Polwarth kirk session minutes 1652–1668 fo 28; National Archives of Scotland, CH2/781/234, St Cuthbert’s fos 48–49, 55. 64 Routledge ed., Calendar of Clarendon State Papers III 2–18, 76. 65 Axon ed., Life of Oliver Heywood 81–84. 66 Parkinson ed., Diary of Henry Newcome II 1-16. 67 Parkinson ed., Diary of Adam Martindale 142–167 68 A Proclamation of the General Convention of Ireland 1. 69 A Declaration of the General Convention of Ireland 1–15. 70 Killen ed., A True Narrative 238–242; Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland II 333–336. 71 Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland 243–252. Latimer, History of Irish Presbyterianism 127–128; Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland 338–340; Robert Armstrong, ‘The Bishops of Ireland and the Beasts of Epheus’ in N.H. Keeble ed., Settling the Peace of the Church (Oxford, 2014) 116–118, 127; Phil Killroy, Protestant Dissent and Controversy in Ireland 1660–1714 (Cork, 1994) 40–41. 72 Julia Buckroyd, Church and State in Scotland 1660–1681 (Edinburgh, 1980) 22–40; Alisdair Raffe, ‘Presbyterian Politics and the Restoration of Scottish Episocopacy, 1660–2’ in N.H. Keeble ed., Settling for the Peace of the Church 144–167. 73 Buckroyd, Church and State in Scotland 26–29; George R Kinloch ed., The Diary of John Lamont of Newton 1649–1671 (Edinburgh, 1830) 196–197; Laing ed., A Diary of Public Transactions 303; Airy ed., The Lauderdale Papers I 24, 39; Laing ed., Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie III 408–409. 74 Buckroyd, Church and the State in Scotland 33–36.

Bibliography Manuscript Sources Aberdeen University Special Libraries, MS 894, Session Records of South Ronaldsay and Isle of Burray. Bodliean Library, University of Oxford, Bodl. Carte 44, Instructions for Sir John Clotworthy Knt and William Aston esq, members of the General Convention of Ireland. Edinburgh University Special Collections Dk. 3.30 Correspondence Relating to Sharp. National Archives of Scotland, CH2/721/1, Polwarth kirk Session Minutes 1652– 1668. National Archives of Scotland, CH2/781/234, St Cuthbert’s. Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, D/ 1759/2A/5, ‘Notes Relating to the Ministers of the Gospel’.

Preservation  197 Printed Primary Sources A Declaration of the General Convention of Ireland (London, 1660). Airy Osmond ed. The Lauderdale Papers 2 volumes (London, 1884). A letter from Sir George Booth to a friend shewing the reasons of his engagement in defence of his countries liberties, &c (London, 1659) An Express from the Knights and Gentlemen now engaged with Sir George Booth, to the City of Citizens of London. And all other Free-men of England (London, 1659). An ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament. For the calling of an Assembly of learned and godly divines to be consulted with by the Parliament [sic] for setling of the government and liturgy of the Church of England: and for vindicating ands clearing of the doctrine of the said Church from false aspersions and interpretations, as shall be most agreeable to the Word of God (London, 1658). A Particular advice from the Office of Intellegence 19 August to 26 August 1659. A Proclamation of the General Convention of Ireland (Dublin, 1660). Axon E. ed., Oliver Heywood’s Life of John Angier of Denton (Manchester, 1937). Birch Thomas ed. Thurloe State Papers 7 volumes (London, 1742). Coxe Samuel, Two Sermons Preached at Christ-Church in the City of Dublin (London, 1659). Forbes J, Memoirs of the Earls of Granard (Dublin, 1868). Green M ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1659–1660 (London, 1886) Hay Fleming David ed., The Diary of Archibald Johnston of Wariston 1655–1660 (Edinburgh, 1940). Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscrpts of Leybourne Popham Eq of Littlecote Co Wilts (London, 1899). Horsfall Turner J ed. The Rev. Oliver Heywood, B.A. 1630–1702; his autobiography, diaries anecdote and event books 7 volumes (Brighouse, 1883). Killen William ed, A True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1866). Kinloch George R ed., The Diary of John Lamont of Newton 1649–1671 (Edinburgh, 1830). Laing David, ed., A Diary of Public Transactions and other occurrences, chiefly in Scotland from January 1660 to June 1667 (Edinburgh, 1836). Laing David ed, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie A.M, Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII-M.DC.LXII 3 volumes (Edinburgh, 1842). London Provincial Assembly, A Seasonable Exhortation of sundry Ministers in London to the People of their respective Congregations (London, 1660). McCrie, Thomas ed., Life of Robert Blair, Minister of St Andrews, containing his autobiography from 1593 to 1636: with supplement of his life and continuation of the times, to 1680 (Edinburgh, 1848). Mercurius Politicus 28 July – 4 August 1659. Mercurius Politicus 28 July – 4 August 1659. Mercurius Politicus 4 August 1659 – 11 August 1659. Mercurius Politicus 28 July – 4 August 1659. Mercurius Politicus 4 August – 11 August 1659. Mercurius Politicus 11 August – 18 August 1659.

198 Preservation Mercurius Politicus 11 August – 18 August 1659. Newcome Henry, The Sinners Hope as his privildge and duty, In his Worst Condition, stated, cleared and improved (London, 1659). Newcome Henry, Usurpation Defeated, and David restored: Being an Exact Parallel between David and Our most Gracious sovereign King Charls II. (Manchester, 1660). Parkinson Richard ed., The Autobiography of Henry Newcome 2 volumes (Manchester, 1852). Parkinson Richard ed., The Life of Adam Martindale (Manchester, 1845). Poole Matthew, Quo Warranto or a Moderate Enquiry into the Warrantablnesse of the Preaching of unordianed or gifted persons (London, 1659). Reid Alexander G ed., The Diary of Andrew Hay of Craignethan 1659–1660 (Edinburgh, 1901). Routledge, F J ed., Calendar of Clarendon State Papers Volume 4 (Oxford, 1932). Sachse, William L ed., The diurnal of Thomas Rugg (London, 1961). Stephen William ed., Register of the consultations of the ministers of Edinburgh 2 volumes (Edinburgh, 1930). The Confession of Faith, first agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminister: And now appointed by the General Assembly of this Kirk of Scotland to be part of a uniformity in religion between the Kirks of Christ, in the three kingdoms (1659). The declaration of the lords, gentlemen, citizens, freeholders, and yeomen of this once happy Kingdom of England (London, 1659). The humble advice of the assembly of divines now by the authority of Parliament sitting at Westminster: concerning a larger catechism, presented to them lately to both Houses of Parliament, with the proofs thereof at large out of the scriptures (London, 1658). The Publick Intelligencer 22 August – 29 August 1659. The Publick Intelligencer 1 August – 8 August 1659. The Publick Intelligencer 29 August – 5 September 1659. The Publick Intelligencer 15 August – 22 August 1659. The Publick Intelligencer 8 August – 15 August 1659. Warner, George ed., The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas 4 Volumes (London, 1886).

Secondary Sources Abernathy, George R, ‘The English Presbyterians and the Stuart Restoration’ Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 55 (1965) 1–101. Armstrong, Robert, ‘The Bishops of Ireland and the Beasts of Epheus’ in N.H. Keeble ed., Settling the Peace of the Church (Oxford, 2014). Buckroyd, Julia, Church and State in Scotland 1660–1681 (Edinburgh, 1980). Buckroyd, Julia, The Life of James Sharp: Archbishop of St Andrews 1618–1679: A Political Biography (Edinburgh, 1987). Clarke, Aidan, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland (Cambridge, 2006). Dow, Frances D, Cromwellian Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979). Hutton, Ronald, The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales 1658–1667 (Oxford, 1985).

Preservation  199 Killroy, Phil, Protestant Dissent and Controversy in Ireland 1660–1714 (Cork, 1994). Latimer, Willaim, History of Irish Presbyterianism (Edinburgh, 1911). Mayers, Ruth, 1659: Crisis of the Commonwealth (London, 2004). Morrill, John, Cheshire 1630–60: County Government and Society During the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974). Raffe, Alisdair, ‘Presbyterian Politics and the Restoration of Scottish Episocopacy, 1660–1662’ in N.H. Keeble ed., Settling for the Peace of the Church (Oxford, 2014). Reid, John Stuart, History of Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1837). Underdown, David, Royalist Conspiracy in England 1649–1660 (New Haven, 1960).

Conclusion

Between 1638 and 1660, the covenanting dynamic evolved and stretched across the three Stuart kingdoms. The multiple links between the kingdoms were used to drive change and defend the legal, constitutional and religious settlement as outlined in the Solemn League and Covenant. The covenanting dynamic which appeared in Scotland in 1638 emerged as part of a wider Anglo-Scottish political and religious framework. In Scotland, the Covenant was a legal instrument to provide stability and to consolidate a federative Anglo-Scottish Union to protect the Scottish Reformation. In England, the idea of the Covenant was restricted to the defence of the Crown against the threat of Popery with little or no reference to the joint providential destinies of both nations. Previous to 1638, both English and Scottish Presbyterianism developed separately, but both shared a commitment to further reformation and to uphold the native laws and constitutions of their respective kingdoms. The National Covenant in February 1638 not only sought to defend the Scottish Reformation against an overbearing monarch but redefined law and order and the relationship between Charles I and his subjects. The National Covenant aimed to preserve the Scottish Protestant Reformed faith as established in Scots law and stated that Charles I was accountable to God and his subjects to protect the Scottish reformed faith. The basis of the Covenanting Revolution was Scots law, not Presbyterian Church government. Throughout the 1640s and the 1650s, the Covenanters cited Scots law and the establishment of Presbyterianism as an essential and inviolable element in Scotland’s polity. The Covenanters triggered constitutional, administrative and military changes across the three kingdoms. To consolidate Anglo-Scottish achievements and aid the war effort, Pym and the Scottish Covenanters looked to establish a Solemn League and Covenant. The Solemn League and Covenant established in September 1643 was more than just a civil league or religious Covenant. It served multiple purposes throughout the three kingdoms. The Covenant sought to uphold an Anglo-Scottish federative union through the mutual respect of the laws, constitutions and parliaments of both England and Scotland and to promote Reformation throughout the kingdoms by purging the ministry, constructing a new Church and reorganising the

Conclusion  201 universities. It was also a military covenant to recruit men, organise the war effort between both kingdoms and provided an armed presence in Ireland to bolster the plantation. The English Parliament actively used the Covenant to expand their authority and influence. However, the covenanted interest was caught between both the Independents and the Royalists. In Westminster Assembly, the Independents sought to overturn majority decisions by breaking stipulated rules of conduct and launched a public attack on Anglo-Scottish military cooperation. The Independents formulated an alternative interpretation of providence that focused on a victorious Cromwell as an instrument of God, which enabled the Independents to overrule the Assembly and appeal for liberty of conscience. Presbyterians in Ulster continued to persevere in difficult circumstances and those who supported a Classical Presbyterian church settlement in England continued to work on procedures for the ordination of ministers. In response to ongoing pressure from the Independents, the covenanted interest persevered with the church settlement in the three kingdoms. There was the creation of an Anglo-Scottish liturgy consisting of a Confession of Faith, a catechism and Directory of Worship to be used in both England and Scotland. Anglo-Scottish networks were used to publish works against the sectaries. In reaction to the stillbirth of the classical church settlement in England, the Manchester and London classes began ordaining ministers for parishes all over England from Northumbria to Cornwall. The Bury and Shropshire classes were founded in 1647. The London Provincial Assembly was also established. The church in Ulster continued to grow and expand, overcoming the strains in the Anglo-Scottish relationship due to the networks of private contacts amongst settlers in the province with support from the Scottish army in Ulster. The covenanted interest looked to the monarch to establish a lasting settlement. Attempts to reach an Anglo-Scottish agreement with Charles I floundered on his loyalty to the Church of England. Charles I feared his authority would be significantly compromised, and the Scots feared that without a covenanted monarch, stability would not be achieved. Its failure was a bitter disappointment to the covenanted interest in England and Scotland. After the Royalist Engagement of 1648, the distance between the covenanted interest and the Royalists widened. The Scottish Kirk strongly opposed the Engagement and the Independents, sensing the threat of a Royalist-Presbyterian alliance, made moves to form alliances with the more radical covenanters with a view to fulfilling English ambitions. This temporary alliance between the Independents and radical Covenanters undermined Royalist attempts to harness English Presbyterian support, leading to the failure of patriotic accommodation across the three kingdoms in the late 1640s. The execution of Charles I initiated a Royalist-Presbyterian alliance built around the Restoration of monarchy under Charles II. Both the Royalists and Presbyterians saw the monarchy as the true, natural and orderly form of

202 Conclusion government in the three Stuart kingdoms. The English, Ulster and Scottish Presbyterians printed their own works, declaring their continued loyalty to the King and his posterity as stated in the Solemn League and Covenant. The monarchy was the key part of a balanced constitution which underpinned the law and preserved liberties. It was a defence against the corrupt actions of the English army. The English Republic was fully aware that a RoyalistPresbyterian alliance threatened its existence. Networks of correspondents between England and Scotland were revealed by the English authorities. The threat was more apparent than real, as the Republican Engagement, coupled with the threat to livelihoods, had stopped many English Presbyterians from openly supporting the Scottish invasion. However, for the remainder of the 1650s, the threat of a Royalist-Presbyterian alliance continued. During Glencairn’s Rising, Ulster Scots were threatened with transplantation, and the Scottish church was threatened with reprisals. In reality, any attempt by the Royalists to court the support of the Kirk was unsuccessful, as the church felt the King lacked a true commitment to the Covenant. In England, a Royalist-Presbyterian alliance was a non-starter, as the Presbyterians remained loyal to the English parliament. The English Republic fearing the covenanted interest directly attacked and undermined the structures which supported them in all three kingdoms. Presbyterians across the kingdoms saw the King’s execution as the culmination of the King’s ill treatment and the destruction of the English constitution by the New Model Army a heinous crime which defied nature and the laws of God. The English Republic actively dismantled the federative union as established by the Solemn League and Covenant. The conquest of Ireland and Scotland was condemned as illegal, whilst a debate raged within the English covenanted interest about the legality of the new English regime. In Ireland, there was ongoing resistance to the Republican Engagement, and in Scotland, although the regime managed to dissolve traditional political structures, it is clear that the acceptance of the Tender of Incorporation was mere lip service and covenanting aspirations remained. As a result, particularly in Scotland, the English regime had to rely on an overly zealous unrepresentative minority to govern Scotland. The English Commonwealth had been successful in undermining the influence of the covenanted interest in the English universities and the Westminster Assembly through enforcement of the Republican Engagement. However, it was in this adverse climate that English Presbyterians formed Classical Associations which consolidated Classical Presbyterianism and several classical associations were established across England by 1660. During the Protectorate, Presbyterian Church government was in the ascendancy. A handful of trusted Presbyterians were nominated as Triers, but far more were appointed as Ejectors. However, English Presbyterians still found fault with the religious policies of the Protectorate and continued to advocate an educated and ordained ministry. The Scottish ministry rejected a Scottish form of the Triers and Ejectors system known as Gillespie’s

Conclusion  203 Charter and believed that the Scottish Kirk should remain independent of any undue interference and control by an unrepresentative minority within the Kirk. The Kirk managed to avoid the proposed committee system in favour of the Scottish Council ‘rubberstamping’ its decisions, in spite of continued disruption in a handful of Scottish parishes. From 1653 to 1656, the Ulster Presbyterian church re-established itself and grew mainly as a result of the networks between the landed elite, the ministry and the laity supported by mass Scottish immigration into Ulster. They also halted the spread of the Protester and Resolutioner crisis and took advantage of the weakness of Episcopalians and Independents in the province. By 1655, a handful of Presbyterian ministers were planted in Dunboyne and Dublin. From 1656 to 1658, in the North of Ireland, the church continued to expand significantly, with State salaries now a major contributing factor and with significant support from the landed elite. It is during this period that the church expanded into new territories powered by continuing Scottish immigration and a lack of competition from religious rivals. There continued to be serious distrust between Henry Cromwell and the Scots in Ulster. Ministers for Ireland were now recruited from the London Provincial Assembly and began to have a more visible presence in the South, particularly around Dublin, where its association was convincingly ‘Presbyterian’ in tone. The Dublin association was modelled on the Classical Associations which emerged in England in the mid-1650s and sought to restrict membership to Presbyterians and exclusively use the Anglo-Scottish liturgy created by the Westminster Assembly. There had been a Classical Presbyterian revival in the mid 1650s. The majority in the Scottish Kirk wished to curtail Gillespie’s influence and successfully courted the friendship of London Presbyterians which led to Gillespie’s isolation from the regime. The Presbyterian ascendancy continued under Richard Cromwell with the encouragement of more ministers to Ireland, after which a synod was founded at Ballymena. Both the Protesters and Resolutioners were confident of a Presbyterian revival under Richard Cromwell as the English Parliament discussed the resurrection of the Westminster Assembly and the AngloScottish liturgy. Wariston was promoted to positions of trust by Independent allies but quickly felt uncomfortable about his new position, especially with the re-emergence of the English Republic. Gillespie was now in the ascendancy, and Wariston was under suspicion for treason as the threat of a Royalist-Presbyterian alliance re-emerged. In reality, there was some involvement by Presbyterians in England in Booth’s Rebellion, but Booth had avoided declaring firmly in favour of Presbyterian Church government which had dampened many Presbyterian spirits. The prospect of the King’s Restoration filled many Presbyterians with hope and excitement for a covenanted monarch, only to end in disappointment. In Ireland, Episcopacy re-emerged, with only a minority pursuing the ends of the Covenant. English Presbyterians encouraged people to renew the Covenant, and Anglo-Scottish cooperation resumed in the hope of obtaining

204 Conclusion a covenanted monarch, but these hopes never materialised. Both English and Scottish Presbyterians had unsuccessful journeys to Breda, as Charles II, despite constructive discussions and clear promises, was not looking to restore himself under the Covenant. All acts of parliament between 1638 and 1660, including the Covenants, were made null and void. Those who still pursued the ideals of the Covenant were branded ‘radicals’, ‘outlaws’ and ‘traitors’.

Index

Aberdeen 105, 131, 136; University of 22 – 23, 131 Action Party 86 – 87 Act of Bangor 138, 142, 152 Adair, Patrick 14, 54 – 55, 100 – 101, 111, 152, 180 – 181, 188 – 191 Adventurers’ Act 9 Agnew, Sir Andrew 140 – 141 Amsterdam 6, 46 Anabaptisim 175 Anglo-Scottish cooperation 38 – 48, 51, 53, 62, 64 – 73, 69, 72, 80, 98, 105 – 106, 151, 162 – 165, 182 – 184 Anglo-Scottish liturgy 36, 43 – 45, 69, 175, 201 Anglo-Scottish Protestant culture 3 – 4 Antrim 6, 17, 111, 139 – 141, 152; Presbytery of 100, 111, 140, 155 Armagh 153 – 155 Ashe, Simeon 6, 18, 23, 47, 127, 162 – 163, 182 Athy 142, 151 Ayrshire 53 – 54 Baillie, Robert 13, 17 – 18, 23, 38, 45 – 47, 50, 65, 67, 70, 107 – 108, 110, 114, 161, 173, 176, 192 Bailly Lewis Dr, former Bishop of Bangor 88 Balfour, Sir William 40 Ballymena 172 Bamford, Samuel 126 Baxter, Richard 114 – 116, 159 – 162 Belfast 53, 80 Benburb 53 Berwick 73 Bishops’ Wars 7, 41 Black Oath 8 – 9 Blair, Robert 17, 67, 73, 104, 130

Blaney, Sir Arthur 87 book of Psalms 43 – 45 Booth, George 176 – 180 Booth’s Rebellion 176 – 180 Bowles, Edward 41 – 43, 184 Boyle, Roger, Lord Broghill 132 – 136, 156, 162 – 165, 181, 190 Breda 183 – 184 Brinsley, John 6 Bruce, Michael 152 Bryan, John Dr 87, 128 Buchannan, David 41 – 43, 64 Buchannan, George 4 Buckworth, Anthony 136 Burgess Antony 71 Bury Classis 51 – 53 Bute, Isle of 103, 141 Butler, James, Duke of Ormonde 13 Cairncastle 139 Calamy, Edmund 71, 158, 161, 181 – 184 Cambridge 159 – 160; University of 14, 23 – 24, 108 – 109, 160 Cambridgeshire association 159 – 161 Campbell, Archibald, Marquis of Argyll 53, 69 – 70, 72, 86, 175, 192 Campbell, John, Earl of Loudoun 44, 103 Campion, Samuel 87 Cant, Andrew 67 Carlisle 73 Carrickfergus 9, 17, 54, 141, 151, 157 Case, Thomas 47, 160 catechising 12, 43 – 45, 160 – 161, 175 Catholics 78, 86 – 87, 134, 178, 182; see also Irish Catholics, Confederation of Kilkenny

206 Index Charles I 4 – 5, 7, 9, 62 – 73, 80, 142; regicide 63, 73, 78, 89, 97 – 98, 102, 192; trial 74, 98 Charles II 63, 74 – 89, 101, 103, 109, 156, 180 – 193 Cheshire 22, 78 – 79, 113, 115 – 116, 126, 159 – 160, 176 – 180, 184, 187 – 188; association 115 – 116, 159 – 160 Cheynell, Francis 24 – 25, 48 Chirk Castle 87 Church of England 6, 10, 64 – 65, 69, 86 – 87, 182 – 193 Church of Ireland 12, 52, 139 – 142, 181, 184, 189 Classical associations 87, 114 – 116, 203 Classical Presbytery 5, 12, 15, 18 – 22, 42 – 52, 87, 114 – 115, 158 – 159, 173, 201 – 203 Clive, Robert 52 Clotworthy John 7, 53, 132, 139, 152, 156, 179, 189 – 190 Colville, John, Dr 52 Committee of Both Kingdoms 11, 39 – 43 Committee of Estates 102 – 104 Committee of Safety 175, 177 – 178, 180 Confederation of Kilkenny 7, 9, 11, 13 – 14, 100 Confession of Faith 5, 12, 43 – 45, 63, 160, 175 Constintine, Robert 113 Convention Parliament 183 – 185 Cook, Thomas 52 Cooke, Thomas 78 Cooper, Thomas 157 Corbet, Sir John of Adderly 52 Corbet, Sir Robert of Standwardine 87 Cork 158; association 158 – 159 Cornwall 78, 179; association 159 – 161 Coultrart, John 155 – 156 covenanted interest 1; see also Scottish Covenanters, English Presbyterians, Ulster Presbyterians, Scottish Presbyterians, Classical Presbytery covenanted monarch 3 – 5, 11 – 12, 55, 62 – 85, 182 – 193, 200 – 204 Covenants 3 – 25; see also National Covenant (1638), Solemn League and Covenant (1643) Cox, Samuel 142, 158, 180, 190

Cromwell, Henry 138, 142, 152, 156, 158, 171 – 173 Cromwell, Oliver 1 – 2, 18, 41 – 42, 45, 64, 72 – 73, 76, 82, 86, 100, 102 – 103, 107, 109 – 110, 126, 129, 139, 154, 156, 165, 171, 176 Cromwell, Richard 171 – 176 Cumberland and Westmoreland association 159 – 161 Cunningham, Hugh 136, 138, 151 Cunningham, Robert of Broadisland 54 – 55 Derbyshire 78, 113, 177 Derry 153 – 154 Devon 72, 159 Directory for burial 44 Directory for Fasting 44 Directory for Ordination 17 – 18, Directory of Worship 12, 18, 43 – 46, 84 – 85, 114, 133, 159, 162, 182 Dix, William 152 Donegal 141, 153 Dorset 47, 72, 160 Douglas, Robert 82, 85, 130, 182 – 183 Down 6, 17, 141, 153 Drogheda, siege of (1649) 100, 158 Dunbar, battle of (1650) 103, 176 Dublin 81, 101, 125, 136, 138 – 139, 142, 151 – 152, 155, 158 – 159, 190; association 158 – 159 Dunboyne 142 Dundas, Sir Walter 1 Dundee 105, 161 Durham 113 East Anglia 5 Eastern Association 23 Edgehill, battle of (1642) 10 Edinburgh 1, 8, 13, 22, 73, 75, 77, 98, 105, 110, 132, 177 Edward VI 3, 67 Elizabeth I 3, 5, 67, 110 Engagement, Republican (1649–1653) 79 – 81, 98 – 101, 108 – 109, 112 – 114, 136 Engagement, Royalist (1648) 62 – 63, 68 – 73, 102 – 103 English Commonwealth 62 – 63, 74 – 89, 97 – 116 English law 6, 8, 13, 52, 186 English Presbyterians 1, 5 – 6, 15, 19 – 21; 37 – 38, 42 – 52, 70, 72, 76,

Index  207 78, 82, 87 – 89, 99 – 100, 108 – 112, 114 – 116, 125 – 128, 151, 158 – 159, 175 – 183, 186 – 188, 193, 200 – 204; in Ireland 17, 158 – 159, 189 – 190 episcopacy 5, 8, 19, 43, 127, 136, 139, 180 – 183 Erbury, William 48 Essex 72, 159; association 159 – 160 Exeter Assembly 88, 159, 162 Fairfax, Fernando 40 Fairfax, Sir Thomas 40 – 42, 69, 86 federative union 3 – 4, 13, 15, 64, 66, 98, 200 – 204 Ferguson, Archibald 55 Fifth Monarchists 159 First Book of Discipline 6 First Protectorate Parliament 86 Fleetwood, Charles 137, 142, 164 Forbes, Sir Arthur 181 Gattaker, Thomas 115 Gee, Edward 99 General Assembly 11, 15, 17, 19, 36, 43 – 45, 53, 82 – 85, 131, 133, 163 – 164 Gilbert, Thomas 87 Gillespie’s Charter 128 – 136, 164 Gillespie, George 44, 71 Gillespie, Patrick 107 – 108, 113 – 114, 128 – 136, 162 – 165, 173 Glasgow 8, 23, 106 – 108, 131, 173, 175; University of 23, 106 – 108, 130 – 131 Glencairn’s Rising 62 – 63, 81 – 85, 202 Goodwin, John 192 Goodwin, Thomas 125 Gookin, Vincent 158 Graham, James, Marquis of Montrose 66 Greg, John 172 Greyabbey 136 Guild, William, Principal of the University of Aberdeen 22 – 23 Guthrie, James 130 Hall, Thomas of King’s Norton 128 Hall, Thomas of Larne 54 Hamilton 107 Hamilton, James Duke of 70 – 72 Hampshire 159 Henry, Philip 88 Harris, Sir Thomas 87

Harrison, Cuthbert 158 Harrison, Thomas 79 Heath, Richard 87 Henderson, Alexander 4, 44, 67 – 68 Henry VIII 67 Herle, Charles 71 Heywood, Oliver 180, 186 Hildersham, Samuel 87 Holles, Denzil 64 Hollywood 138 Houston, Renfrewshire 82 Howe, Dr John 164 Hull 78 Humble Proposals 125 Hyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon 84, 185 incorporative union 104 – 107 Independents 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 17 – 18, 24 – 25, 36 – 38, 41 – 51, 64, 69 – 70, 88, 109 – 112, 139, 151 – 152, 181, 186 Instrument of Government 129 Ireland 2, 8 – 9, 12 – 17, 100 – 102, 109,136 – 142, 151 – 159, 180 – 181, 185, 188 – 191, 200 – 204; 1641 rebellion 12, 14, 17 Irish Catholics 7, 9, 12 – 14, 101, 136, 156, 180 Irish Parliament 13 – 14 Irish Protestants 13 Islandmagee 54, 136, 151 Isle of Man 79 James VI and I 4 – 5, 67 – 68, 80 Jennison, Robert 6 Johnston, Archibald of Wariston 4, 39 – 40, 85 – 86, 104 – 105, 133, 173 – 177, 183 Johnston, James 141, 155 Kenilworth Classis 116, 128, 136 Kennedy, Anthony 55 Kennedy, Gilbert of Dundonald 54 Kennedy, John, Provost of Ayr 53 Kent 126, 179 Ker, James 55, 111, 138 Keynes, William 158 Killead 139 Killylegh 54 Kirkcudbright 106 – 107 Knox, John 3 – 4 Kynaston, Ralph 87

208 Index Laggan 139, 141, 151 Lambert, John 164, 180 Lancashire 20, 50, 78 – 79, 126, 176 – 180, 187; provincial assembly 72, 99 Laud, William, Archbishop of Canterbury 19 Lecky, William 142 Leicestershire 78 Lenzie 113 – 114 Leslie, Alexander, Earl of Leven 40 – 41 Leslie, David, Major General 40 – 41, 70, 177 Lilburne, Robert 82 – 83, 129, 179 Linaskea 155 Lincolnshire 47, 72, 126 liturgy, reform of 11; see also Anglo Scottish Liturgy: in England Liverpool 40 Livingstone, Henry 152 Livingstone, John 8, 17, 129 – 130, 152 – 153 London 5 – 6, 8, 18, 20, 36, 65, 73, 78, 98, 138, 181; City of 14, 23, 39, 45, 47, 50 – 51, 61, 178, 181, 184 London Presbyterians 43, 45 – 51, 55, 74 – 75, 78, 97 – 99, 112, 127 – 128, 161, 173, 177, 182, 190; Fourth London Classis 48 – 51, 55, 158 London Provincial Assembly 23 – 24, 50 – 51, 55, 75, 110, 126 – 128, 158, 173 Long Parliament 1, 7 – 20, 23 – 25, 36 – 37, 41, 45, 47, 51, 53, 64, 66, 68, 71, 78, 112, 183 Love, Christopher 74, 126 Ludlow, Edmund 176 Lurgan 158 Malden, John 52 Manchester Classis 19 – 20, 49, 51 – 53, 55, 72, 80, 113, 179 – 180, 187 Manton, Thomas 125, 158, 161 – 162, 181 – 182 Marshall, Stephen 71 Marston Moor (1644) 40 – 42 Martindale, Adam 20 – 22, 79 – 80, 100, 111, 115 – 116, 180, 186 – 188, 191 Mary I 3 Massey, Edward 86 Meldrum, Sir John 40 Melville, Andrew 4 Menzies, John 129 – 130

Mercurius Politicus 77 Middleton, John 83 Milne, William 136, 151 ministry, reform of: in England 11, 201 Monck, George 171 – 172, 180 – 183 Montagu, Edward, Earl of Manchester 18, 23 – 24, 41 – 42, 70 Montgomery Castle 40 Montgomery, Hugh, the Viscount Montgomery of Ards 76 Moray, Robert 67 Morley, Dr 185 Munro, Sir George 82 Naseby 45 National Covenant (1638) 3 – 8, 10, 22 – 23, 63, 129, 131, 200 – 201 Nedham, Marchamont 78 Newbury, second battle of (1644) 40 Newcastle propositions 62 – 63, 66 – 68 Newcome, Henry 20, 22, 79, 115 – 116, 126, 179 – 180, 184, 186 – 188, 191 New England 6, 46 New Model Army 39 – 40, 45, 66, 74, 109 Newry 17, 136 Newtonards 54 Nicholas, Sir Edward 86 Norfolk 72, 179; association 159 – 161 North Channel 6, 82 Nottingham 177 Nottinghamshire association 159 – 162 Nye, Philip 14, 18, 38, 125 oaths of association 3 O’Quinn, Jeremiah 55, 111, 136, 138, 151 Orkney 184 Owen, John 125, 176 Oxford 65; University of 14, 24 – 25, 108 – 109 Paget, Thomas 6, 52, 80, 126 Parliament see First Protectorate Parliament, Long Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Short Parliament, Rump Parliament Parsons, Andrew of Wem 87 patriotic accommodation 62 – 89, 99 – 100, 156, 176 – 180, 200 – 204 Peebles 155 Penruddock’s Rising 88 Philiphaugh 65

Index  209 plantation of Ireland 2, 6, 16, 69, 140 – 141 Porter, Thomas 52, 87 – 88 Prayer Book riots 8 Presbyterian Church government see Scottish Kirk, Scottish Presbyterians, Ulster Presbyterians, English Presbyterians, English classes Presbyterian ordination 18 – 22, 46 – 55, 109, 111 – 112, 127 – 128, 130 – 136, 159 – 165 Presbyterian plot of 1651 74 – 81 Protectorate 125 – 142, 151 – 165, 203 Protestation Oath 8, 10 Protesters 82, 85 – 86, 104, 107 – 108, 110, 112 – 114, 128 – 136, 138, 162 – 165, 173, 175 – 176, 185, 191 – 192, 203 Psalms 45 Puleston, Sir John 88 Pym, John 3, 7 – 8, 10, 39 Quakers 152, 159, 175, 178 Ramsay, Gilbert of Bangor 82 Ramsay, Robert 23 Ray 136 reformation see English Reformation, Scottish Reformation Resolutioners 81 – 85, 104, 112 – 114, 128 – 136, 138, 162 – 165, 173, 191 – 192, 203 restoration 3, 89, 171 – 172, 180 – 193, 203 – 204 Reynolds, Edward Dr 158, 174, 182 – 184 Rich, Nathaniel 8 Rich Sir Robert, Earl of Warwick 70, 72 Richardson, Joshua 87 Richmond, Donald 138 Rogers, Christopher Dr 109 root and branch petition 8 Rous, Francis 18, 24, 45, 99 – 100, 126 Route 17, 151 Row, John 45 Royalists 2, 7, 10, 12 – 15, 24 – 25, 40, 42, 48, 53, 62 – 89, 156, 172, 176 – 193; court in exile 86 – 87, 191 – 192 Rump Parliament (1649–1653) 74, 97 – 116, 126; (1659) 171 – 172, 176 – 181 Rutherford, Samuel 133, 161

Sarum Classis 158 Scone 76, 182 Scot, Sir John of Scottistarvet 129 Scottish army: in England 7, 13, 38 – 43, 63; in Ireland 9, 14, 16 – 17, 40, 52 – 53; in Scotland 13 Scottish law 4, 22, 52, 77, 105 – 107, 128 – 134, 166, 200 – 204 Scottish Covenanters 1 – 2, 7 – 8, 10 – 11, 13, 15, 22 – 23, 37 – 47, 51 – 55, 67, 75, 83, 200 – 204 Scottish Kirk 4, 6, 15, 43 – 45, 69, 71, 81 – 85, 98, 102 – 107, 125, 128 – 138, 142, 182 – 184, 193, 200 – 204 Scottish Parliament 4, 7, 11, 15, 22 – 23, 77, 128, 192 Scottish Presbyterians 1 – 4, 22 – 23 Scottish Reformation 1 – 5 Sealed Knot 86 – 88 Seaman, Lazarus 18, 23, 44 Semple, William 138 – 139 Sharp, James 162 – 165, 174, 176 – 177, 181 – 182, 191 – 192 Sherrid, Hope 155 Short Parliament 7 Shrewsbury 87, 126 Shropshire 78, 126, 159, 176 Shropshire Classis 20, 49, 52, 55, 72, 80, 87 – 88, 113, 115, 126 Simpson, James 136 Solemn League and Covenant (1643) 1, 5 – 7, 10 – 25, 36, 39 – 41, 47, 63, 66, 68, 75, 80, 84 – 85, 97 – 116, 128 – 133, 142, 159, 161, 174 – 176, 180, 193, 200 – 204 Somerset 159 Spalding, John 13 St Andrews 104, 161 Stanley, James, 8th Earl of Derby 79 Stanley, William, 9th Earl of Derby 179 Staunton, Edward 20, 109, 112 Stirling 106, 135 – 137 Suffolk 72 Sussex 126 Sympson, Matthias 135 – 136 Tallents, Francis 87, 115 Taylor, Timothy 111, 136, 151 – 152 Teate, Faithful 158 Templepatrick 138 Tender of Incorporation 104 – 107; see also incorporative union

210 Index Thirty Years’ War 3 Thurloe, John 164 Thurso 85 Triennial Act 7 Triers and Ejectors 125 – 128, 130 – 131 Tyrone 141, 151, 153 Ulster 2, 6, 8 – 9, 12 – 17, 36, 52 – 58, 79, 81, 100 – 101, 110 – 113, 125, 136 – 142, 151 – 159, 172 – 173 Ulster Presbyterians 6, 12, 16 – 17, 52 – 58, 74, 81 – 82, 85, 100 – 101, 110 – 113, 136 – 142, 151 – 159, 172 – 173, 180 – 181, 188 – 191 Universities, reform of: in England 11, 14, 23 – 25, 108 – 109; in Scotland 22 – 23, 107 – 109 Ussher, James 6, 155 Uxbridge Propositions 62 – 63, 66 Vane, Henry 44, 98, 175 Veal, Edward 142, 191 Vernon, Henry 87

Vesey, Thomas 138, 181 Vines, Richard 115 Wales 14, 72, 78, 87, 176; and classis structure 14, 159 Waller, Sir William 87, 179 Warwickshire 116, 126 Watson, Thomas 127 – 128 Wentworth, Thomas, Earl of Strafford 8 Westminster Assembly 17 – 20, 23, 36 – 39, 43 – 48, 70, 73, 87, 111 – 112, 115, 126, 159 – 162, 180, 200 – 204 Wilkins, Dr 164 Wiltshire 159 Wirksworth Classis 113 Worcester, battle of 78, 81, 104, 108, 160, 176 Worcestershire association 114 – 115, 159 – 162 Wrexham 88 Yorkshire 19, 22, 49, 78, 186