Cromwell and Scotland E-Book

R. Scott Spurlock

• Herausgeber: John Donald
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 654

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2007

Beschreibung

This book examines the role of religion in the story of Oliver Cromwell's invasion and subsequent occupation of Scotland. Analysis of the printed propaganda produced by the Scots and the English makes it clear that both nations defined their positions, and gained support, in overtly religious terms. During their decade-long occupation of Scotland, the English Commonwealth actively sought to undermine Scottish Presbyterianism. Public disputes, public preaching and Scotland's printing presses were all used to weaken the influence of the Kirk, while eager English soldiers and chaplains tried to convert Scots to their own particular religious sects. Policies of the Scottish Kirk and State in the previous decade had ostracised a significant portion of the Scottish people. As a result, English missionaries found some Scots eager to hear alternative forms of Protestantism preached. Dispelling myths that the sectarian presence had little impact on Scottish religion, this book describes the endeavours of the Independents, Baptists and Quakers to gain converts, with varying degrees of success.

Leseprobe

Cromwell and Scotland

Source: A Fight at Dunin in Scotland, Between the Scots Women and the Presbyterian Kirkmen (Edinburgh, 1652).

First published in Great Britain in 2007 by

John Donald, an imprint of Birlinn Ltd

West Newington House

10 Newington Road

Edinburgh

EH9 1QS

www.birlinn.co.uk

ISBN 10: 0 85976 702 7

ISBN 13: 978 1 78885 337 8

Copyright © R. Scott Spurlock 2007

The right of R. Scott Spurlock to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available on request from the British Library

Typeset in Sabon by

Koinonia, Manchester

Printed and bound in Britain by Bell and Bain Ltd, Glasgow

To my parent and the unyielding faithfulness and friendship of Manders

Contents

Acknowledgements

Conventions and Abbreviations

Map of Cromwellian Garrisons

Introduction

1 ‘The Covenant’ vs ‘The Lord of Hosts’: A Struggle for Public Opinion through the Printed Propaganda of War

The Role of Religion in the Conflict

Polemic as Self-Definition

Polemical Models for the Kirk

Polemical Warfare

Covenant versus Providence

Presbyterian Interpretations in the Wake of Dunbar

2 ‘Go not to Gilgal nor Bethaven!’: Presbyterian Resistance to the Polemics of Sectarian Occupation

A Widespread Sectarian Presence

An Evangelical Occupation

Religious Toleration

Public Disputes

3The Dead-Man’s Testament and A Litle Stone: The Commonwealth’s Campaign against the Scottish Presbytery

External Calls for Reform

Mysterious Voices from Within

Settled Government and Overt Attacks on the Kirk

Softening Regulation and Presbyterian Response

The Protectorate and the Abatement of Anti-Presbyterian Works

4 ‘Neirer the patterne of the word’: A Season of Indigenous Scottish Independency

The Fertile Soil of Discontent

Scottish Sectarians

Separation

The Aberdeen Independents

Gillespie’s Protesters and Disciplinary Minded Independents

Institutional Support for Independency

The Twilight of Seventeenth-Century Scottish Independency

5 The ‘Lamb’s War’ in Scotland: The Rise of the Quakers and the Fall of the Baptists

Baptists and the Army

Quakers and the Scottish Populace

Sectarian Unity in the Closing Years of the Interregnum

Interpreting Divergent Experiences

Conclusion

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgements

I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to all those who have supported me over the past four years during the production of this thesis, particularly the following: my supervisors, Dr Susan Hardman Moore and Dr Jane Dawson, who have shown exceptional support, encouragement and patience; Professor David F. Wright, for his great kindness and guidance during my studies at New College; the staff of New College Library, Edinburgh, for their many trips to special collections; the staff of the National Library of Scotland; and the congregation of Morningside United Church, to whom I owe a special debt of appreciation. Portions of this book were revised and added thanks to the generosity of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Edinburgh where I received a postdoctoral fellowship in 2006–7: grateful appreciation to Professor Susan Manning, Anthea Taylor and Donald Ferguson. Sincere thanks and a great debt of gratitude are owed to both Dr Frances Dow and Professor John Morrill, whose guidance and feedback were immeasurably beneficial in the transformation of this work from a PhD thesis into its present form. More than just examiners, they have been advisors and friends. Thanks are also extended to the Strathmartine Trust, whose generous grant advanced the publication of this book. Finally, my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to Amber, Cliff and Karen for nearly a decade of kindness and support.

Conventions and Abbreviations

Conventions

All dates given in this work have been adjusted to the modern calendar, with 1 January marking the beginning of a new year. Additionally, publishers are only given for seventeenth-century works printed in Scotland during the Interregnum.

Abbreviations

AGA Church of Scotland, General Assembly, Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1638–1842, ed., Pitcairn, T., (Edinburgh, 1843).

APS Innes, C. and Thomson, T., eds, The Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, 11 vols (Edinburgh, 1814–44).

Abbott, Cromwell Abbott, W.C., ed., The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 4 vols (Cambridge, MA, 1937–47).

Baillie, L & J Baillie, Robert, Letters and Journals, ed., Laing, D., 3 vols (Edinburgh, 1841–2).

Balfour Balfour, Sir James, The Historical Works of James Balfour, 4 vols (Edinburgh, 1824).

Baxter, Synod of Fife Baxter, C., ed., Ecclesiastical Records. Selections from the Minutes of the Synod of Fife, 1611–1687 (Edinburgh, 1837).

Blairs Papers Hay, M.V., The Blairs Papers, 1603–1660 (London, 1929).

BQ Baptist Quarterly

Brodie Brodie, Sir Alexander, Diary of Alexander Brodie of Brodie (1652–80) (Aberdeen, 1863).

COS Church of Scotland

COSGAC Church of Scotland, General Assembly, Commission

CSPD Green, M.A.E., ed., Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series 1651–1660, 13 vols (London,1877–86).

Clarke MSS Microfilm copy of the William Clarke Manuscripts held in Worcester College, Oxford and NLS, ed., Aylmer, G.E., Brighton Harvester Microfilm, 1977–9. Listed by volume number.

Clarke Papers Firth, C.H., ed., The Clarke Papers, 4 vols (London, 1891–1901).

Clarke Papers V Henderson, F., ed., The Clark Papers: Further Selections from the Papers of William Clarke, Camden Fifth Series, vol. 27 (Cambridge, 2005).

Cramond, Elgin Cramond, W., ed., The Records of Elgin, 1234–1800 (Aberdeen, 1898).

Cramond, Moray Cramond, W., ed., Extracts from the Records of the Synod of Moray (Elgin, 1906).

Donaldson, ‘Schism’ Donaldson, G., ‘The Emergence of Schism in Seventeenth-Century Scotland’, Scottish Church History (Edinburgh, 1985), 204–19.

Dow Dow, Frances, Cromwellian Scotland: 1651–1660 (Edinburgh, 1979; 1999).

EUL Edinburgh University Library

FES Scott, H., ed., Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, 7 vols (Edinburgh, 1915–1928).

Fox Fox, George, The Journal, ed., Smith, N. (London, 1998).

Gardiner, C & P Gardiner, S.R., ed., History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate 1649–1656, 4 vols (London, 1903).

Henderson, RLSCS Henderson, G.D., Religious Life in Seventeenth Century Scotland (Cambridge, 1937).

Holfelder Holfelder, K.D., ‘Factionalism in the Kirk during the Cromwellian Invasion and Occupation of Scotland, 1650 to 1660: The Protester–Resolutioner Controversy’ (PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1998).

JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History

JFHS Journal of the Friends Historical Society

JPHSE Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society of England

Kinloch, St Andrews & Cupar Kinloch, G.R., ed., Ecclesiastical Records. Selections from the Minutes of the Presbyteries of St. Andrews and Cupar, 1641–1698 (Edinburgh, 1837).

Lamont Lamont, John, The Diary of Mr John Lamont of Newton, 1649–1671, ed., Kinloch, G.R. (Edinburgh, 1830).

Nickolls Nickolls, J., ed., The Original Letters and Papers of State, Addressed to Oliver Cromwell; Concerning the Affairs of Great Britain (London, 1743).

Nickalls, Fox Fox, George, The Journal of George Fox, ed., Nickalls, J.L. (Cambridge, 1952).

Nicoll Nicoll, John, A Diary of Public Transactions and Other Occurrences, Chiefly in Scotland, 1650–67, ed., Laing, D., (Edinburgh, 1836).

NLS National Library of Scotland

ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

Penney, Fox Fox, George, The Journal of George Fox, ed., Penney, N., 2 vols (Cambridge, 1911).

RCGA Mitchell, A.F. and Christie, J., eds, Records of the Commission of the General Assembly, 3 vols (Edinburgh, 1890–1909).

RCME Stephen, W., ed., Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh and Some Other Brethren of the Ministry, 2 vols (Edinburgh, 1921–30).

RHCA Firth, C.H. and Davies, G., eds, The Regimental History of Cromwell’s Army, 2 vols (Oxford, 1940).

RSCHS Records of the Scottish Church History Society

Robertson, Lanark Robertson, J., ed., Ecclesiastical Records. Selections from the Registers of the Presbytery of Lanark, 1623–1709 (Edinburgh, 1839).

Row, History of the Kirk Row, John, The History of the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1842).

Rutherford, Letters Rutherford, Samuel, Letters of Samuel Rutherford, ed., Bonar, A.A. (Edinburgh, 1863; 1984).

S & C Firth, C.H., ed., Scotland and the Commonwealth (Edinburgh, 1895).

S & P Firth, C.H., ed., Scotland and the Protectorate (Edinburgh, 1899).

SHR Scottish Historical Review

SHS Scottish History Society

Stevenson, Counter-Revolution Stevenson, D., Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977; Edinburgh, 2003).

Stuart, Aberdeen Stuart, J., ed., Selections from the Records of the Kirk Session, Presbytery, and Synod of Aberdeen (Aberdeen, 1846).

Stuart, Strathbogie Stuart, J., ed., Extracts from the Presbytery Book of Strathbogie. 1631–1654 (Aberdeen, 1843).

TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society

TCHS Transactions of the Congregational Historical Society

Underhill, Records Underhill, E.B., ed., Records of the Churches of Christ Gathered in Fenstanton, Warboys and Hexham, 1644–1720 (London, 1854).

Wariston, ii Johnston, Sir Archibald, of Wariston, Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, ed., Flemming, D.H., vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1919).

Wariston, iii Johnston, Sir Archibald, of Wariston, Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, ed., Ogilvie, J.D., vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1940).

1. Kilcreggan(?) Castle

2. Dumbarton Castle

3. Craigbarnet (Campsie)(?)

4. House of Kilsyth

5. Kinneil House

6. South Queensferry

7. Craighouse

8. Dunfermline

9. Burntisland

10. Kirkcaldy

11. Wemyss

12. Struthers Castle

13. Inchkeith

14. Inchgarvie

15. Anstruther

?- denotes uncertainty of Location.

Map of Cromwellian GarrisonsCromwellian Garrisons Occupied for at Least Three Months

Introduction

In 1982, John Morrill reviewed three recently published works which together he lauded for their great strides in charting the religious history of seventeenth-century Scotland. Two of the works primarily focused on the religion of the country, while the third did not. Frances Dow’s Cromwellian Scotland is an academic study par excellence dealing with the political and military history of Interregnum Scotland. The focus of her work meant she dealt with the religious issues of the period in so far as they related directly to the political climate. So in terms of ecclesiastical history, Morrill professed ‘there is still a thesis to be written on the Scottish Church in the 1650s’.1 K.D. Holfelder’s 1998 PhD thesis took steps in this direction by deciphering the complexities of Presbyterian polity during a turbulent decade which witnessed a dramatic schism within the Kirk.2 Yet, while this work addressed the internal Presbyterian religious discourse within the Kirk, a large gap in the story of Interregnum Scottish religion and its most distinctive aspect remains untold. The intention of this book is to help fill the void in studies of seventeenth-century Scottish religion in one of its most dynamic decades.

Ecclesiastical studies of seventeenth-century Scotland have often focused (perhaps over-focused) primarily on the Covenanters’ struggle against Episcopacy. Such an interpretation has understandably been forged by the persecution and martyrdom of Presbyterians during the ‘Killing Times’. Unfortunately, however, this has tended to overshadow the earlier part of the seventeenth century and resulted in the subscription of the covenants in 1638 and 1643 being viewed primarily as setting the stage for the brave stand against the king later in the century. As a result, historians have often treated the Interregnum ‘as little more than a parenthetical break’ in an otherwise seamless struggle.3 Such a perspective has meant the modest research produced on Scottish religion of the 1650s, like James Beattie’s History of the Church of Scotland during the Interregnum, explore little beyond the Protester–Resolutioner schism.4 Other more general histories of Scotland have tended to merely gloss over the decade altogether, focusing instead on the covenanting periods before and after. There are some noticeable exceptions to this generalisation, which will be discussed below, but the traditional emphasis on how a national covenanted presbytery should interact and engage with secular authorities has tended to overshadow the degree to which Presbyterianism and its covenants came under the scrutiny of a growing number of Scots during the Interregnum.

In contrast to previous works on the Interregnum, this study will focus on the backlash against the Kirk and the covenants brought about by Scotland’s engagements with the English parliament and subsequently with the king during the English civil wars. The policies of the Kirk during the 1640s engendered a deep seated antipathy among nonconformist religious groups in England who anxiously embraced the 1650 invasion of Scotland as a crusade against a domineering national church. For this reason the English army that crossed the Tweed into Scotland on 22 July 1650 was in general more religiously radical in its disposition than any in the preceding decade. Their conquest and occupation led to the introduction of an unprecedented degree of Protestant variations into Scotland, all of which desired to proselytise Scots away from an intolerant Kirk. It is the motivation of the invading English, the success of their missionary endeavours and the reaction of the Scottish populace that are the focus of this book.

What is most exceptional about Interregnum Scotland, from the religious perspective, is that for the first time religious toleration became the official policy of the Scottish government.5 In turn, the debate between Presbyterians and Independents that took place in England during the 1640s penetrated the popular Scottish consciousness for the first time. Although Kirk ministers like Robert Baillie and Samuel Rutherford fired volleys against English Independents and sects from the presses in London during the 1640s, prior to the Interregnum the dialogue between Presbyterians and Independents had been tightly censored in Scotland. From December 1638 the General Assembly strictly controlled the religious products of Scotland’s presses by requiring that all works referring to the Kirk or religion receive pre-publication approval from the fiery clerk of the assembly and advocate for the Kirk, Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston.6 In August 1643 the assembly ordered ministers, ‘especially … upon the coasts’, to ‘search for all books tending to separation’. All such works and their distributors were to be referred to the local presbyteries in an effort to ‘hinder the dispersing thereof’.7 By 1647 the censorship of the Presbyterian–Independent debate further escalated when the General Assembly passed an act prohibiting the printing, importing or distribution of literature ‘maintaining Independencie or Separation’.8 This act, prompted by what Scottish representatives to the Westminster Assembly had witnessed in London, intended to prevent ‘the errours [which] … have (in our neighbour kingdome of England) spread as a gangraen’ from doing the same in Scotland.9 This strict censorship efficiently prevented the general populace of Scotland from any familiarity with the nuts and bolts of the debate taking place England, but they may have done even more than that.

Although some ministers and intellectuals in Scotland kept abreast of the developing dialogue, especially those directly involved in it, there is evidence suggesting the bans may have prevented Scotland’s universities from attaining Independent works. In 1653 John Row, the principal of King’s College Aberdeen who signed a declaration in favour of Independency, not only denied being influenced by the writings of John Cotton but claimed never to have seen any of Cotton’s works. As a result of the General Assembly’s strict censorship, the arrival of Cromwell’s forces in 1650 initiated a fresh controversy in Scotland. Irrespective of the fact that the content of the religious debates was not new, as its rhetoric reflected the recycled debates of the previous decade in England, for the people of Scotland the presence of English troops inititiated an utterly new discussion.

The scholarship of Anne Hughes demonstrates that a religious ‘fluid marketplace’ existed in England during the 1640s and 1650s wherein alternative forms of Protestantism vied for popular support. In this atmosphere of religious competition the growth of radical sects forced ‘Orthodox’ ministers to engage in public debates with radical opponents in an attempt to curb sectarian growth and to defend their parishioners. This study will explore how the introduction of sects into Scotland, under sweeping toleration imposed by the English Commonwealth regime, created a similar dynamic in Scotland, drawing ministers of the Kirk into a struggle for the hearts and souls of Scotland’s population against an occupying army with an evangelical agenda.

Older studies addressing different aspects of the religious diversity during the period predominantly focus only on particular sects.10 Only two attempts have been made to analyse the overall breadth of what took place and provide an overview of how the various sects engaged with the Scottish populace.11 G.D. Henderson’s ‘Some Early Scottish Independents’ offers a deluge of citations providing snapshots of particular individuals or places, while briefly touching on the presence of the English army and making a few observations about the existence of Quakers in Scotland.12 The bulk of the article focuses on the personas of the leading figures among the Aberdeen Independents. Although it provides good information, it does little to tie events together. W.I. Hoy’s ‘Entry of Sects into Scotland’ is significantly more holistic in its approach and brings to light important sources that provided a welcome jumping-off point for beginning this work.13 However, Hoy also presents additional challenges resulting from inaccurate and incorrect citations.14 Beyond these exploratory works, little has been done to draw the various strands together.

This book will set out to establish the fundamental role of religion as a motive for England’s conquest and occupation of Scotland from 1650 to 1660. From the outset of their campaign the English army, largely comprising Independents, Baptists and members of other nonconformist religious groups (or sects), rallied behind the task of bringing down the intolerant national Church of Scotland, which under the guise of the Solemn League and Covenant had intervened in both English civil wars. The resentment English nonconformists felt towards the rigid Presbyterians north of the border is not difficult to understand when Scotland’s sole stipulation for involvement in each war was that religious uniformity be agreed upon by both nations in the form of the presbytery. The Scots fought with the parliament in the First Civil War, believing parliament had agreed that the uniform pattern of ecclesiastical government for the two kingdoms would be the presbytery. When this expectation failed to be met, the Scots joined the king in the Second Civil War on the condition he impose, for a trial period, a national Presbyterian church in England. As a result, Scottish meddling set the stage for Cromwell’s 1650 invasion of Scotland.

This study falls into two parts. The first focuses on the motives for England’s invasion of Scotland and enquires to what degree an anti-Presbyterian sentiment existed within the English regime and army. chapter 1 evaluates the literature produced by both sides in order to establish that Scotland’s state Church and its narrow interpretation of the covenants were among the most important, if not indeed the most important, motivations for England’s campaign against Scotland. Furthermore, it establishes that the Scots understood the threat posed to the Kirk by an ‘army of sectaries’ entering Scotland. Hence the invasion represented a battle for the souls of the Scottish people and the outcome would resound as a providential declaration of God’s favoured form of church government. Chapter 2 explores the efforts and means of Englishmen to promulgate their own particular religious views in Scotland. Under the religious toleration imposed by the regime in February 1652 many religiously radical members of England’s army viewed the country as ‘a field white with harvest’.15 The third chapter gauges, by analysing the use of Scotland’s strictly controlled presses, the regime’s changing policy regarding religious settlement, the promotion of congregational autonomy over that of national hierarchies, and the establishment of religious toleration in Scotland in the manner exhibited in England.

The second part of this study addresses the results of different religious groups planting themselves among the Scots. Chapter 4 investigates the separation of Scots from the Kirk by means of forming wholly indigenous Independent congregations. Moreover, it inquires into the Kirk’s own culpability for this schism. The testimony of Scots who left the Kirk demonstrates how events of the 1640s not only antagonised their southern neighbours but sowed seeds of discontent among some parishioners and clergy. As a result, the policies of the Kirk prepared the way for the message of separation preached by English missionaries during the Interregnum. The fifth and final chapter compares the experiences of Baptists and Quakers in Scotland and seeks to establish why they experienced varying degrees of success. It considers the factors that enabled the Friends to be the sole sectarian religious group introduced during the Interregnum to survive and grow through the Restoration period.

In order to avoid being sidetracked from the purpose of this study, the Protester–Resolutioner conflict is not directly discussed in what follows.16 However, where divisions between the Protesters and Resolutioners were fostered or indeed engendered by the English as part of their efforts for achieving a religious settlement, it will be addressed, or, as is the case discussed in chapter 4, when the distinction between particular groups of Protesters and Independents became blurred. Essentially this book is an attempt to bring to light the oft-forgotten and dynamic religious open market instituted by the Commonwealth/Protectorate in Scotland in the wake of what many contemporaries considered to be the reign of an oppressive Presbyterian Kirk. The Interregnum represents a decade in which formerly rigid supporters of the covenants and opponents to toleration came to heed Cromwell’s desire that God would ‘make all Christians of one heart’.17

A number of the sources used in this study have been utilised in previous works, such as the letters of Archibald Johnston of Wariston to the Aberdeen Independents18 and the debate between James Guthrie and the General Baptist James Brown.19 In these cases this study delves deeper into these works as source material than they have previously been used. For example, Wariston’s extensive replies to Aberdeen, which he produced after multiple private conferences with Alexander Jaffray and John Menzies, are drawn heavily upon as important sources for identifying the particular doctrinal position of the Aberdeen Independents. This is important because previous studies have relied almost completely upon the Aberdonians’ initial declaration in favour of Independency which they produced months before separating.20 Likewise, the debate between Guthrie and Brown is not used just to identify the doctrines disputed between the two ministers, but also as a case study for how public disputes were carried out and how they fit into the overall policy of the English regime.21 In other cases material is reanalysed to produce wholly new information neglected by earlier studies. For instance, I have identified several of the signatories to a Scottish petition for religious toleration and subsequently been able to ascribe to them their proper religious affiliation. As a result, this study demonstrates how Scottish Baptists, Independents and Quakers joined together in the closing months of the Interregnum to request mutual toleration for one another at a time when their English counterparts had little sympathy for one another.22 Additional material in this study is utilised for the first time. Where this occurs it is duly noted, but probably the most intriguing instance is the identification of an anonymous manuscript as a forgotten work of Samuel Rutherford.23 Consequently, this book identifies the context of the paper and ascribes a relatively precise date for an important, but long-ignored, manuscript.

Finally, a word about the terminology used in this book. The term ‘sectarian’ is a loaded phrase within modern Scotland in relation to Protestant–Catholic bigotry. This is not the sense in which it is used here. For our purpose, a sect ‘is a subdivision or splintering off from an already established religion’; for the present study Protestant Christianity.24 Or more specifically, ‘the independence of the church or group from the state, coupled with the freedom of the individual from coercion in matters of conscience and religion’.25 Perhaps an important distinction to keep in mind in relation to the political situation in which sects were introduced into Scotland is provided by Benton Johnston. He defines a church as ‘a religious group that accepts the social environment in which it exists’ while ‘a sect … rejects the social environment in which it exists’.26 Werner Stark took this argument one step further and declared that often sectarians ‘are in their country rather than of their country … they are even, as a rule, against it’.27 It is by this definition that the religious groups who entered Scotland as part of Cromwell’s army and their Scots proselytes are referred to as ‘sectarian’, because they stood against and were a response to the expansionist policies of the established Church of Scotland. More importantly, the use of the word sectarian rests not on a modern interpolation thrust into the seventeenth century, but rather upon the prevalent use of the term in the period of study itself. Repeatedly Scottish writers referred not to an ‘English’ army invading, but to an ‘army of sectaries’ or to the army of ‘the publicke enemy Cromwell, and the sectarian traitorous rebels of England’.28 The journal Perfect Passages stated that Scots clergy continued to preach against the ‘English as Sectaries and Schismaticks’ long after their arrival.29 Consequently, Scots who accepted the religious alternatives advocated by the English army were termed ‘sectaries’. William Dundas lamented, when looking back upon the Interregnum, that the Kirk labelled him a ‘sectary’ for ‘my looking one step further then their publick Faith’.30 Thus the Scots defined their enemy less by nationality and more by their divergent religious practices. Yet more importantly, in its contemporary context the term ‘sect’ was embraced by many who rejected national churches and instead joined gathered congregations in England.31 As a result, the government and Kirk of Scotland naturally identified the introduction of radical Protestant groups as ‘sects’ and Scottish proselytes as ‘sectarians’.

1    ‘The Covenant’ vs ‘The Lord of Hosts’

A Struggle for Public Opinion through the Printed Propaganda of War

Nor must it be forgotten what hazard our own nation hath run of late, through the malice, falshood, and Factions of the late Presbiterian Drivers. He that will remember what they did in the year 1647, 48. 49. 50. and 51. must needs confesse, that great hath been the deliverance of this Commonweal, and the manner of it almost incredible, considering the waies and meanes whereby we have been rescued out of the Claws of the old Tyranny; which (through their faction and fury) was at the very point of returning in again upon us. From hence therefore let us conclude, that no Error is more dangerous, no Treason more pernicious to a Commonweal then the driving of Faction.1

Mercurius Politicus, June 1652.

Even before the English army crossed into Scotland on 22 July 1650, a war of propaganda raged between the Scottish Kirk and the English parliamentary army. The intensity of this clash led J.D. Ogilvie to dub it ‘a combat in itself, although one in which only ink was spilled’.2 As the inevitability of conflict became increasingly apparent, polemical works took on a fundamentally important role as both nations strove to galvanise support. In Scotland, the imposing threat of the battle-hardened and well-oiled military machine of the parliamentary army made Scottish national unity essential for any successful defence against an English invasion. With the nation’s religion, monarchy and sovereignty at stake Scotland’s civil and ecclesiastical governments (who were largely the same group)3 rallied the nation under the banner of the covenant and published against the evils of the English ‘Sectarian army’. They hoped by convincing Scotland’s populace of the blasphemous and heretical nature of the English they would ensure a unified defence. Yet the Scots were not alone in their urgency to rally supporters. Many of those who backed the English parliament during their campaigns against Charles I in England and their invasion of Ireland needed reassurance before they would take part in any invasion of Scotland, forcing parliament and the army to justify their invasion of an independent nation which practised a ‘rightly reformed religion’ to the significant number of moderates and Presbyterians among their own ranks.4 While initially both the English and Scots focused their propaganda on rallying allies, as the English invaders approached the Tweed, their attentions turned towards undermining support for the rigid covenanting government of the Scots. Thus the propaganda of both nations served a twofold purpose: first, to rally popular support for their own cause; and second, to wage a war of propaganda against their opponents both at home and abroad.

The Role of Religion in the Conflict

Between 25 June 1650, and the autumn of 1651, polemical works were produced by both English and Scots to establish the political stability of their positions, but the language that predominated in these works was religious. The reason for this is simple. Although a military and political conflict, the underpinning ideological issues were rooted deeply in the religious issues of the day. Although Scotland had proclaimed Charles II as king of all of Great Britain and Ireland on 5 February 1649, Charles’ presence in Scotland the following year can only be seen to be at best partially responsible for the English invasion. In fact even this declaration of temporal authority had an underlying religious function recognised by the English regime. Scotland’s declaration of Charles II as king of all Great Britain did not represent simply a pro-monarchy sentiment, but a declaration of Scotland’s intention to pursue the archetypal models of both ecclesiological and secular government illustrated in the Kirk’s interpretation of the Solemn League and Covenant.5 Hence the invasion of Scotland by the English parliament represented a backlash against the pattern of religious and secular society plotted by the Kirk.

So while England’s invasion had clearly political and secular motivations (preventing further Scottish incursions into England) the Commonwealth identified the ideological enemy who fostered Scotland’s interference into English politics and society to be the Kirk and its covenants. Certainly, many Scots recognised this to be the case. ‘This pairtie,’ wrote the diarist John Nicoll, ‘eftir thai haif actitit such thinges in England and Yreland, conceaving that thai can not be establisched and eat the fruit of thair awin devyces without contradictioun, als long as the Kirk of Scotland standis in thair way.’6 Nicoll rightly recognised that by 1650 the Kirk represented the greatest obstacle to the Commonwealth, not the king. The English army knew the score as well. Cromwell had declared in 1648 that ‘our brothers of Scotland – sincerely Presbyterian – were our greatest Enemies’.7 In that year he attempted to solidify the relationship between the English Independents and the Scottish Kirk by aiding the settlement of the extreme party of the Kirk into power through the Whiggamore Raid. He hoped they would be more amenable to his own Independent party in England.8 However, the Scots Kirk had proven on more than one occasion they would only settle for one arrangement and it would have to be wholly on their terms. Throughout the 1640s Scotland, under the guise of the National Covenant (1638) and the Solemn League and Covenant (1643), repeatedly intervened in English affairs solely on the basis of establishing Presbyterianism in England through ‘a religious union’ in order to secure the Kirk.9 As a result, the English invasion of Scotland must be viewed as the result of a series of events stretching back to the ascendancy of Presbyterianism in Scotland with the signing of the National Covenant, wherein Scotland’s attitude to the presbytery became ‘imperialistic’. That is to say, the preservation of presbytery at home, as well as the exportation of presbytery abroad, came to dominate both Scottish politics and policy.

When Charles I attempted to secure a semblance of religious uniformity throughout his kingdoms by imposing a Book of Common Prayer on the Scottish Kirk in 1637, a backlash took place, challenging royal authority and opening the door for the civil wars throughout the three kingdoms.10 Popular resistance to royal interference in ecclesiastical affairs prompted the production of the National Covenant in 1638. Later in the year the General Assembly convened, denounced the king’s interference in religion, deposed the bishops, deposed the high commission and restored Presbyterianism as the governmental structure of the Kirk. Although the covenant affirmed the role of the king, from Charles’ perspective it undermined the divinely sanctioned authority of his royal prerogative. As a result, two brief conflicts ensued, deemed the ‘Bishop’s Wars’, which set a precedent for armed resistance to royal absolutism and hence may be seen as a precursor to all the British civil wars that followed. Thanks to Swedish military strategies, innovations and experience gained by Scots mercenaries serving in the army of Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty Years War, the Covenanters quickly forced the king to capitulate in the first ‘war’ in 1639 and routed the royalist forces near Newcastle in August 1640 in what came to be known as the Second Bishop’s War.

The following year Scot representatives travelled to London to negotiate terms with the king. In addition, they approached the recently appointed ‘Long Parliament’ requesting a policy of religious uniformity between the two kingdoms. The Scots argued that the king’s tyranny, particular in respect to religion, represented a threat to the wishes of both nations’ legislative bodies and argued a uniformity of religion would protect the wishes of the godly throughout the Stuart kingdoms. This proposal represents the first in a series of events demonstrating Covenanted Scotland’s refusal to function independently of affairs in England. Scotland, if not desirous of a union, at least refused to be independent of the political and ecclesiastical process in England.11 The Long Parliament refused this proposal, but circumstances soon changed. In 1642 the civil war broke out between the king and England’s parliament. In outlining its primary aims to Scotland’s General Assembly, parliament proclaimed the advancement of ‘the Truth and Purity of the Reformed Religion, not only against Popery but against all other superstitious sects and innovations whatsoever’.12 After a series of one-sided defeats at the hand of royalist forces, parliament approached the Scots for military support. According to Robert Baillie the English sought a ‘civil league’, but the Scots held out for ‘a religious Covenant’. Desperate for military assistance, the English acquiesced and the Solemn League and Covenant was drawn up in Edinburgh in June 1643. The document pledged in its first clause to

sincerely, really, and constantly, through the Grace of God … the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine Worship, Discipline, and Government, against our common Enemies, the reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, according to the Word of God, and the Example of the best Reformed Churches. And shall endeavour 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.13

Only in the latter clauses did the covenant speak of monarchy, although it preserved the divinely ordained role of the monarch. Both sides felt as though they had attained what they sought. The English assured Scottish support in their war against the king by pledging to pursue ‘reformed religion’, while the Scots had, they believed, attained what they sought in 1641 by reaching an agreement for religious uniformity. Although no particular form of church government is defined, the Scots certainly believed that ‘the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland’ represented the penultimate ‘example of the best Reformed Churches’. The Scots understood this agreement as an assurance by parliament that England would adopt a Presbyterian form of national church government.

The First Civil War ended in 1646 with the English parliament– Scottish coalition victorious. However, during the three years they fought together a mutual distrust began to develop. Part of this stemmed from Scottish involvement in the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Although not constituent members, the Scots, who had been invited to join the newly formed assembly by the English representatives in Edinburgh who had helped to draw up the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643, took a leading role and demonstrated a single aim throughout: the establishment of a Presbyterian church government in England. English Independents and other non-conformists, who predominated in the parliamentary army, resented this foreign intervention in religious affairs and accordingly grew wary of Scotland’s ultimate aims. Likewise, the Scots and English Presbyterians increasingly questioned the orthodoxy of their English cohorts. Already in 1644 Robert Baillie worried that young impressionable Scots serving alongside English parliamentary soldiers ran a great risk of heretical infection.14 By 1646, the final year of the First Civil War, Presbyterians began making concerted efforts to name and shame heretics. Foremost in this endeavour was Thomas Edwards, who produced a three-part publication entitled Gangraena. According to Edwards, the whole New Model Army might be labelled ‘Independent’, but in reality it served as a breeding ground for ever-evolving heresies. So although they had served as allies for three years in a shared struggle against the king, Presbyterians, both English and Scot alike, came to view the New Model Army as a dangerous liability, while the New Model Army and much of parliament perceived the Scots as singularly minded in their unjustified intervention in English affairs.15 Henry Marten reminded the commissioners that their input regarding religion should be at best humble advice; in other matters the Scots should stay out of English affairs.16

The smouldering distrust between the Scots and the English army found further credence in the events of 1647. Both treated with the king, vying to secure their own desired settlements. In May the Scots treated with Presbyterian MPs over moving the king to Scotland and sending a Scottish army into England. Recognising the threat, English soldiers abducted the king, keeping him at the New Model Army’s leisure. The Scots perceived this as an underhanded move and further evidence of the sectarian, heretical and dangerous disposition of the army. The Committee of Estates received advice from the Kirk denouncing the influence of sectarians in England and advocated the necessity of religious uniformity throughout Great Britain along Presbyterian lines before any lasting settlement between the two nations.17 However, the New Model Army experienced internal dissensions threatening the coherence and solidarity of their cause. During the summer Cromwell and Ireton sought to secure a settlement on terms amenable to the New Model Army, but more radical elements fuelled by Leveller principles refused proposals resulting in any compromise of their burgeoning republican principles. Opposition to the status quo of government rose up within the New Model Army, which found expression in The Case of the Armie Truly Stated. In October and November, debates between the commanders of the New Model Army and elected ‘agitators’ took place at Putney. It became increasingly clear what these elements would require in a settlement with the king: religious liberty and widespread toleration.

Prompted by disappointment in the failure of Presbyterian ecclesiastical government materialising in England, the increasing tolerance of parliament towards sects and the overwhelming ‘sectarian’ nature of the English army, the Scots approached the king. Late in December 1647, the Scots entered into an Engagement with the King, agreeing to aid him in opposition to the parliament on the sole condition he impose a three-year trial period of national presbytery in England and take all expedient action ‘for suppressing the opinions and practices of Anti-Trinitarians, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Arminians, Familists, Brownists, Separatists, Independents, Libertines, and Seekers, and generally for suppressing all blasphemy’.18 Although extremely controversial in Scotland, as it ultimately led to the division of the Kirk into two parties, the engagement represented a widely held sense of urgency that England needed to be Presbyterian. Under this Engagement with the King, Scotland entered the Second English Civil War despite covenanted commitments to parliament.

The war was short, and the king and his allies lost. Charles sought refuge with the withdrawing Scots army, but for £400,000 sterling the Scots sold the king back to parliament. Meanwhile, a dynamic shift of power took place in Scotland. In 1648 the radical party of the Kirk ceased power in what has come to be known as the Whiggamore Raid, and established its rule with the aid of Oliver Cromwell’s army, which entered Scotland for this purpose on 21 September. This radical party perceived the Engagement with the King to have been a compromise to their covenanted principles. Cromwell assisted the Kirk Party to consolidate their power, believing it would meddle no further in English affairs. He was wrong. The execution of the king met with outcry in Scotland, where it was widely believed that the covenants upheld the divine right of monarchy. With the death of Charles I, Scotland, believing it to be its covenanted duty, sent representatives to the Prince of Wales at Breda in the Netherlands to broker an agreement for his return. Once again, Scotland’s sole stipulation for crowning Charles II was that he sign the covenants with the clear understanding that they implicitly supported Presbyterianism.

The commissioners of the General Assembly openly declared against the ‘army of sectaries’ in 1648 and sent the parliament of England a testimony to Scottish abhorrence of religious toleration in February 1649.19 In light of events transpiring since 1647, the English parliament and army believed that the Scots, having invested so much wealth and blood in promoting Presbyterianism (under the guise of the covenants), would be unlikely to sit idly by and watch England lie either under a vast religious toleration or under a ‘sectarian’ parliament and army. For England’s Independents, explains Allan Macinnes, the defeat of the Scots became imperative for the security of a free state.20 As a result, proponents of religious toleration and liberty construed the invasion of Scotland as a defensive campaign, which may go some way towards explaining why the army received orders to invade Scotland with great exuberance. It became esprit de corps, and letters abounded from English officers expressing an unusual enthusiasm within their ranks and ‘a spirit of prayer and piety not usual in camps’.21

There can be little doubt that the invading English army viewed the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as paramount an enemy as Scottish support for the crown. Several contemporary sources affirm the widely held anti-Presbyterian intentions of Cromwell’s invasion. The Welsh-born Presbyterian Christopher Love (although clearly not impartial) declared the primacy of anti-Presbyterian motives for the invasion of Scotland shortly before his execution for treason in 1651. According to Love, the Scots’ passion for ‘a scriptural presbytery … [and] sound doctrine’ constituted in a national Presbyterian church, as well as zealous opposition to any compromise in this respect, fuelled parliamentarian fears that the Kirk would inevitably lead to further Scottish interventions in English affairs.22 Importantly, however, Presbyterians were not alone in branding opposition to the Kirk as a primary motivation for the English invasion of Scotland. In 1654 an anonymous veteran of Dunbar wrote to the Protector in defence of Baptists, and cited their anti-Presbyterian motives as evidence of their piety and a common thread shared among all the English combatants who took part in the campaign. ‘I confess they [the Baptists] have been enemies to the Presbyterian church, and so were you when at Dunbar,’ writes the author, ‘or at least you seemed to be so by your words and actions … and made this an argument why we should fight stoutly, because we had the prayers of the Independent and baptised churches.’23 This is the reason for the prominence of religion in the tracts produced in the run-up to Dunbar. Religion was fundamentally at the root of the conflict between the two nations. In fact, on the eve of the war English newsprints persisted in conveying the message ‘that on the Scottish part you may call this third War Bellum Presbyteriale’.24

Polemic as Self-Definition

Through the use of terms such as covenant, providence and election, both sides set out, in internally and externally directed polemics, to paint a partisan picture of God’s divine will and to defend the religious validity of their positions in a manner closely related to the disputes within the Westminster Assembly. For example, Cromwell’s press spun the conflict as a battle between those who advocated religious freedom, toleration and the preservation of Protestant diversity against the Scottish Kirk and establishment seeking to impose a largely ‘unwanted’ religious conformity on England in the form of a national Presbyterian model of ecclesiastical government. The Church of Scotland, in contrast, painted itself as the champion of Reformed religion, defending Protestantism against the ‘sectaries’ and ‘heretics’ who had overthrown the English Church, killed the king and assailed Reformed orthodoxy in the Assembly of Divines. In this light, the struggle between Scotland and England in 1650–1 might be seen as a socio-political manifestation of the heady theological debates of the Westminster Assembly. With this in mind, this chapter seeks to demonstrate how the propaganda used to influence domestic religion in England during the 1640s, especially in the struggle between Presbyterianism and Independency during the Westminster Assembly, continued to be used in the international political conflict of the 1650s between England and Scotland.

Two aspects in particular are crucial for understanding the polemical dialogue between the Kirk and Cromwell’s troops. First, both sides believed that their propaganda would actually have an effect on popular opinion and swing public support. The Kirk certainly believed that by lambasting its opponents as heretical it would secure public opposition of the Scottish populace against the English army of ‘blasphemous sectaries’, heartening them to defend their nation and religion.25 They also believed lower-ranking English soldiers could be convinced of their grievous error in invading a ‘rightly reformed’ and independent kingdom. Likewise, the English supposed their cause would awaken dormant desires for drastic social and religious change among the Scottish populace. Given the chance, the Scottish masses would jump at the opportunity to be liberated from systems that oppressed them, both politically and religiously. Hence, the English identified their role as providential, believing they entered Scotland to ‘deliver them from slavery’ rather than ‘bring them to misery’.26 Motivated by this self-perception as providential liberators as opposed to conquerors, the English addressed the common people of Scotland in the language of Christian fraternity in an attempt to befriend them.

The second important aspect of the propaganda that works itself out in the texts and is fundamental to the conflict between the Scots and the English (and also to their differing interpretations of the events of 1650–1) are the different ways in which they understood the operation of God’s divine will in the world. The importance of this cannot be overemphasised, as some scholars have noted that both the Kirk party in Scotland and the English parliament verged on theocracies.27 Scotland depended heavily on its covenanted status with God, while England depended on the guidance of God’s providential blessings. Basic to every event and action taken by the Kirk and government of Scotland (especially after the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643) was adherence to the covenants. Their relation to the covenants served to create a largely consistent and static framework for them to work from. As Margo Todd explains, Scotland was ‘a nation bonded together by a religious conviction, ready to take up arms’.28 The covenants created a largely united vision and way of interpreting God’s will, and represented the penultimate expression of God’s providence by placing Scotland in the same sort of relationship with God that Israel had experienced in the Old Testament. For this reason, men like Archibald Johnston of Wariston believed that ‘the making of the National Covenant was the wedding day of Christ the bridegroom with Scotland his bride’, and as a result, ‘the Israel parallel came more and more to the fore’ in the months following its signing in 1638.29 Within this covenanted relationship, clear guidelines existed: obedience ensured blessing and protection for God’s people, while disobedience and sin brought divine punishment in order to restore the relationship. Consequently the Kirk interpreted everything that occurred in terms of its covenanted status with God, either as affirmation or as correction. As part of its covenant, the nation pledged to maintain Presbyterianism, promote it whenever possible and uphold the monarchy. These obligations of covenant narrowed the Kirk’s view of providence, because of the need to preserve both the monarchy and what it perceived to be the most perfect form of church government, the Presbytery.30 What could not be reconciled with the covenant and the preservation of Presbyterianism was outside the Kirk’s field of vision in interpreting God’s providence.

In contrast, the Commonwealth’s primary interest in God’s unrestrictable providence meant a much more dynamic conception of God’s workings in the world than could be confined to a static framework of interpretation, like that of the Kirk. The interpretation of providence influenced every aspect of life in Puritan England.31 And while the Commonwealth believed providence to be consistent and lead in a linear direction, it need not necessarily follow the course of fallen human wisdom, nor could it be defined by a penultimate expression or definition such as a National Covenant. Therefore fervent prayer and devotion from the elect is necessary to understand God’s perpetually revealing providence, since it must be continually reinterpreted. In the case of the Scottish Kirk, it was not that it held the covenants so high that it disregarded providence as something less than a continual revealing of God’s will, but in the Kirk’s estimation providence had to be consistent with, and interpreted in relation to, the Covenant. The English also held the covenant as being important, but viewed it as a product of God’s providence for a particular point in time. As a product of providence, the covenant could not limit the scope of providential interpretation in England like it did in Scotland. Owing to these different understandings of God’s workings, the two nations had different understandings of the events of 1650, and differing interpretations of their obligations and roles in the unfolding of God’s divine will. Because both nations believed themselves to be in a special relationship with God, it became important to convince the general public of the divine right and blessing upon their religious preferences, political establishments and military campaigns. The pre-invasion propaganda produced by both sides expresses the dynamic and symbiotic relationship between religion and politics within mid-seventeenth-century Britain, and the political importance of religious propaganda. As much as the conflict of 1650 was a struggle between nation–states, it equally represented a conflict over political and religious ideologies. In other words, for Scotland the religion and form of government set forth in the covenants served as the yardstick by which to measure God’s will, while in England there was a growing sense that a radical break with the past was at hand and that God’s providence would lead beyond covenants and historical precedents to the establishment of Christ’s kingdom in this world. Both sides agreed that the outcome of war would be the vindication of one of their interpretations.32

Polemical Models for the Kirk

In her studies of seventeenth-century England Ann Hughes has focused on the practice of using polemics as a tool for gaining popular support for denominations within a ‘fluid marketplace’ for religion. In particular she asserts that English Presbyterians of the 1640s and 1650s, although not anything like a majority party in England, were ‘far from writing off the mass of the people as prone to profanity or to radical heresy’ and well aware of the importance of popular support for their cause. Accordingly, some English Presbyterians spent ‘their careers competing for public support and influence in the pulpit and in the press’.33 By exaggerating the excesses of their sectarian opponents they sought to polarise religious positions and make their own Presbyterian position seem much more moderate and appropriate.34 Scots Presbyterians, like Robert Baillie, warmly received their works, praising the manner in which Thomas Edwards’ treatises painted dangerous factions ‘in clearer colours than yet they [had] appeared’.35 Baillie’s enthusiastic support for this sort of publication is evidenced by multiple references in his letters between 1644 and 1646 to his excited anticipation for the works of Edwards and others to be published.36

Prompted by the impending invasion of Scotland by an army comprised largely of sectarians, fuelling fears that the sort of religious ‘fluid marketplace’ existing in England loomed dangerously on the horizon for Scotland, the polemics published by the Kirk in the 1650s represent the continuation and combination of two different propaganda traditions, as well as an altogether new endeavour. David Stevenson has shown how the Kirk first began to use mass printing as a tool for influencing public opinion and defending Presbyterianism during the 1638 General Assembly in Glasgow when the Covenanters produced both a Protestation against the king’s dissolution of the assembly and the acts of that assembly. So effectively did the Kirk use propaganda against Charles I the following year in an effort to secure the support of the English people, the king had to respond with his own publications. Again in 1640 the Kirk published The Intentions of the Army of the Kingdome of Scotland and The Lawfulnesse of our Expedition into England Manifested to persuade the English public that the entry of Scottish forces into England should not be interpreted as a Scottish invasion of England, but an attack on the tyrant Charles I.37

However, by 1650 the threat to Scotland’s national church came not from Rome, bishops or a tyrannical king, but rather from forms of Protestantism lacking the degree of discipline desired by the Presbyterian Kirk. Drawing upon the example established by Edwards a decade earlier in England, and faced with an unprecedented threat to the recently re-established Presbyterian Kirk, the Church of Scotland produced tracts directed at the general public using popular imagery intended to sway public support. Although some Scots also wrote against English sectarians in the 1640s – such as Samuel Rutherford and Robert Baillie – their works were intended for other intellectuals and not to woo popular opinion in the way that Thomas Edwards and Thomas Hall had in England. The polemics produced by the Kirk through the summer of 1650 show the Kirk, in the manner exhibited by Edwards and Hall, making a concerted effort to sustain popular (public) support by putting the excesses of their opponents into print. Just as Ann Hughes explained Edwards’ intentions in Gangraena, the Kirk sought to polarise ‘orthodox … Presbyterians’ against ‘radical sectaries, soldiers and Independents’. They hoped their publications would have the same significant impact in the summer of 1650 as Gangraena had in England in the late 1640s.38

The Kirk drew upon the images of a ‘Sectarian army’ used by Edwards in Gangraena, wherein he wrote ‘I do not thinke there are 50 pure Independents in the whole English Army.’ In his estimation the religious composition of the English army was an amalgam of every sect and heresy present in England, with the soldiers perpetually cross-fertilising one another with new varieties of error. ‘In one word,’ wrote an army chaplain who provided him with information, ‘the great Religion of that sort of men in the army, is liberty of conscience, and liberty of preaching.’39 With these examples at hand, the Kirk set out to portray the dark heretical and covenant-breaking nature of the approaching army in the same clear and colourful way that Edwards had done in England. For the Church of Scotland, the approaching English were not just a temporal foe but ‘sectaries’ who held ‘monstrous blasphemies and strange opinions in Religion’, suffered from ‘a spirit of Delusion and Rashness’ and had shown ‘themselves playne enemies’ of true religion by maintaining ‘that impious monster of Toleration’. Unlike Hall and Edwards, who in England represented a minority trying to gain popular support, the Kirk worked from a majority position aiming to maintain popular support rather than muster it. While Edwards’ and Hall’s works might have been read aloud to gatherings or congregations, they were largely dependent upon the literacy of their intended audience. The Kirk, on the other hand, benefited from the ability to have its tracts read out in every parish church across Scotland by order of the General Assembly. This represented an important advantage in Scotland, where as late as the 1630s only 50 per cent of the population could read, while in the countryside the figures dropped to between 10–20 per cent for men and less than 10 per cent for women.40 Accordingly, the Kirk worked from a privileged position for two reasons. First, it read its own tracts to the populace of Scotland in the parish, while English tracts were left to be pondered only by those who could read or had them read aloud. Second, they were attempting to maintain popular support rather than create it.

Polemical Warfare

As the inevitability of conflict became apparent by late June 1650, the first publications were produced. On 25 June 1650 the commissioners of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland published A Seasonable and Necessary Warning Concerning Present Dangers and Duties. The work followed just days after the commissioners proclaimed a Day of Humiliation and Fasting to be observed by every congregation on the last day of June.41 This corporate action was intended to cleanse the nation and ensure that Scotland was just and pure in the sight of God in light of the three great dangers facing the nation: first, the ‘sudden and unexpected approachings of the Sectarian forces in our Neighbour Kingdom of England’; second, the oppression of the godly in England and Ireland ‘now groaning under the tiranny’ of England’s parliament, which ‘if providence doe not otherwise dispose, ere we our selves may be brought to the like or worse extremity’; and third, Scotland’s own Malignant party.

The commissioners of the General Assembly produced A Seasonable and Necessary Warning in order to explicate the present danger facing the country, and ordered it to be read in every parish church.42 In addition to the ‘snares’ of the Scottish Malignants who reared their ugly heads under Montrose earlier in the year, a new threat lurked south of the border in the form of an army of ‘Sectaries’, which threatened not only the sovereignty of Scotland, but also its properly reformed religion. Largely ignoring the political reasons for the invasion, the Kirk argued the fundamental cause to be the devious intentions of the English army to bring the same social disorder to Scotland that their distorted religious views had produced in England.

All that concerns Religion, lye in the dust altogether forgotten and despised by those men, and instead of the beauty and order that should be in the house of God, a vast toleration of many grosse errors is allowed, whereby so many and so monstrous blasphemies and strange opinions in Religion have been broached and are vented in England, as the like hath not been heard of almost in any generation.43

Although written against both internal and external threats, the primary thrust of the work framed the English army as a dark and blasphemous entity. The Kirk reiterated this overwhelming concern for the subversive threat of sectarian religion by republishing several earlier declarations, one of which forbade allowing ‘idler(s) who hath no particular calling, or vagrant person(s) under pretence of a calling’ to perform ‘Worship in Families … Seeing persons tainted with errours or aiming at divisions, may … creep into houses and lead captive silly and unstable souls’.44 According to the commissioners, the survival of the church and kingdom of Scotland depended upon the unity of the nation through adherence to the Kirk and the covenants. A Seasonable and Necessary Warning represented the first in a series of publications produced by the Kirk and the approaching English which gradually developed into a polemical dialogue leading up to the battle of Dunbar.

On 26 June 1650, the day after the Kirk published A Seasonable and Necessary Warning, England’s parliament produced its declaration of war. Although the Declaration of the Parliament of England, upon the Marching of the Armie into Scotland