Chronicling the Changing Identity of the Covenanters

The seventeenth century in Scotland is one characterized by turmoil and religious dispute. One of the major points of contention in early seventeenth century Scotland was centered around the administration of the church, also referred to as church polity. The Church of Scotland had been administered as a presbytery, comprised of elected elders from within the local congregation.[1]

Charles I's indelicate handling of
the religious situation in Scotland
led to a galvanization against 
the episcopalian polity.

 This polity differed from the Church of England, which was administered by bishops appointed by the head of the faith (the reigning monarch).[2] James VI had used this to great effect to control the Church of England, and he sought to implement a similar polity in the Church of Scotland, though he did so through measured steps rather than a drastic alteration.

1637 saw the manifestation of decades of tension between church and state, as the institution of the Book of Common Prayer on the Church of Scotland by Charles I elicited outrage among many devout Scottish Presbyterians, as the Book of Common Prayer sought for parity between the Scottish and English churches. Adopting this prayer book would be a major step towards the union of the two churches under Stuart control. This outrage materialized in the drafting and widespread subscription to a National Covenant the following year, which sought to reinstate the orthopraxy of the Scottish Kirk as sworn to by James VI in 1581.

Despite initial success and considerable control over the kingdom of Scotland through the 1640s, the Covenanters would ultimately be brought under the control of the Commonwealth, effectively quashing the movement’s impact. However, the Stuart Restoration in 1660 reinvigorates the movement, as Charles II had previously sworn to the covenants ten years prior in return for Covenanter military support shortly before his disastrous loss at Worcester and flight from the British Isles. Charles was no longer interested in upholding these terms and held particular animosity against radicals in the Scottish Kirk for the offenses committed against his father, and began to punish the group heavily, leading to the late 1670s and 1680s being referred to as “the Killing Time” in popular Scottish history. Scotland would ultimately emerge from the period as a Presbyterian nation, but the Covenanters would fail in their broader goal of implementing Presbyterian polity throughout the British Isles.

Many historians have written about the Covenanters, and many have focused in depth on specific areas of either the pre- or post-Interregnum incarnations of the Covenanter movement. However, seldom few modern historians compare these two groups. It is implicitly recognized that a distinction exists, but little has been done to flesh out these differences and analyze where both areas agreed/disagreed.

Several key questions can help to shape these understandings and help portray the groups more clearly: How were the groups composed and organized? Where were the groups based? What visions did these two groups have for the nation? How did they go about achieving these goals? Did the two manifestations agree on theological tenets? If the two disagreed, where/how? Were both groups prone to factionalism, or more singularly united? How did the groups view the role of the monarchy? How did the latter Covenanters fare after the Glorious Revolution? Were attempts made to continue this grander goal of full British Presbyterianism, as their forebears had attempted in the 1640s? 

Works such as the anonymously published
 1714 A Cloud of Witnesses provide priceless
 insight into the political and doctrinal positions
of many Restoration Covenanters in their
 final moments.

This work will seek to demonstrate that the two groups were united in many regards, but differed in several key areas – to the extent that the two should be viewed as separate, closely-related entities rather than the same group merely separated by a decade of Parliamentarian religious toleration. To corroborate this position, examination of primary sources – primarily Covenanter sermons, anonymously-published works, declarations, political treatises, and gallows speeches will be analyzed to help provide a strong image of the groups in both eras. Emphasis will be placed on political and doctrinal differences as well as practical considerations in order to demonstrate areas of harmony and discord between the two eras.

Altogether, this work seeks to present a measured analysis of both periods of Covenanting Scotland, and seeks to discuss the quality and nature of the groups during both periods. In so doing, it hopes to provide further refinement of the historical discussion concerning a period of great passion, emotion, and discord amongst the Scottish people. 

Overall, this work seeks to respectfully and humbly contribute to the broader historical discussion by strengthening and making more explicit the typically implicit distinction that historians have heretofore recognized, typically limited by chronological scope. Demonstrating that a clear difference between these two groups exist and building on the work done by previous historians, this work will help provide a broader framework for discussing Covenanter history while attempting to discuss potential connective tissue that may well exist between the waves of covenanting tradition.

––––––––––––

[1] “Presbyter” and its variant forms derive from the Greek πρεσβύτερος, frequently translated as “elder.”

[2] This polity, not exclusive to the Church of England, is referred to as “episcopacy,” deriving from the Greek word most often rendered in English as “bishop,” ἐπίσκοπος.