THE Covenanters while living were not only vilely misrepresented by their opponents, but bitterly persecuted to death. And now that they have passed long since into the presence of the Judge of all there have not been wanting many who have not hesitated to blacken the fair fame of noble men and women who loved the truth of God even to death. Scotland, of all lands, has been unfortunate in having a school of historians with strong Royalist and Cavalier sympathies who, with all their professions of impartiality, are strongly biased against the Covenanters’ contentions. Fortunately, the Covenanters have not been without defenders, historians who were able to expose the baseless charges and prejudiced accounts which the Cavalier school of Scottish historians palmed off on the uninformed multitude as the settled judgment of history. In this connection one has only to mention the names of the elder Dr Macrie, Dr Smellie, Dr King Hewison, and Dr Hay Fleming, whose writings have done so much to give a fairer and truer perspective of men and events in the momentous death grapple for religious and civil liberty which ended in the Revolution of 1688. To these writings we must now add the Rev. Dr Macpherson’s “The Covenanters Under Persecution”; for though we do not agree with all that Dr Macpherson has said, we have been deeply impressed with the thoroughness with which he has handled his subject, the diligence with which he has searched the writings of the Covenanters for proof of his statements, and the skill with which he has built up his argument in defence of the Covenants. The work was prepared as a thesis for a doctorate in Philosophy, which Edinburgh University bestowed upon the author.
The Covenanting struggle has always appealed to that deep-rooted instinct of freedom which God has planted in the human breast. It was the clash of two mighty powers—absolutism ending in tyranny and that of the worst kind, tyranny over the conscience—and the desire to enjoy freedom—civil and religious—that made it so intensely keen and determined. The mighty issues at stake were not simply civil, for behind it all was the question of whether the absolutism of an earthly King was to prevail, or that Christ should be acknowledged as Head of His Church. If we leave out of sight this last point we utterly fail to understand the true inwardness of the Covenanting struggle in Scotland. It was this which ennobled the contentions of that heroic band of men and women who suffered reproach for His name and nerved them with a determination that neither threat of privation or exposure to death for a moment daunted in the seeming unequal struggle which ended so victoriously for their cause in 1688.
We do not mean to say that the Covenanters never did or said anything that was inconsistent with their profession of Christ’s holy religion. Neither do we wish it to be understood that all that went by the name of Covenanters were worthy of the name. But this is a very different thing from holding them up to derision because of the principles they held and which were in direct antagonism to absolutism in Church and State. One of the worst informed of the Covenanters’ critics, Buckle, whose brilliant style has made way for his opinions to places which they would not otherwise have reached, has written of the Covenanters as a gloomy set of fanatics, inspired by a God of terror instead of love. Dr Macpherson has no difficulty in showing that Buckle is guilty of falsely representing them in this description. He quotes from the sermons of the Covenanter preachers, and shows that the love of God had a very large place in their preaching. They have been charged with hypocrisy, fanaticism, and uncharitableness, issuing in turbulent and murderous principles, and when these are examined in the light of their writings and documents, Dr Macpherson shows the charges are without justification. The question whether individuals should take the law into their own hands and remove persecutors out of the way was debated among them. Some held that such a proceeding was justifiable. Others, with whom we agree, thought otherwise.
The question of taking up arms in defence of Christ’s cause was another point on which there was some difference of opinion, and as is well known many of them who resorted to the sword died by the sword, and for resorting to it they have been condemned by many who otherwise sympathised with them. In this connection we may quote at some length the well-balanced statement of one of the ablest theologians Scotland ever produced, Dr William Cunningham, in connection with Zwingle’s death at the battle of Cappell. “He has sometimes been charged,” says Dr Cunningham, “even by those who had no prejudice against his cause or his principles, with interfering too much in the political affairs of his country, and connecting religion too closely with political movements. And, indeed, his death at the battle of Cappell has been held up as an instance of righteous retribution, as an illustration of the Scriptural principle, that ‘he that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword.’ Though this view has been countenanced by some very eminent and influential names in the present day, we are by no means sure that it has any solid foundation to rest upon. We do not know any Scriptural ground which entitles us to lay it down as an absolute rule, that the character of the citizen and the patriot must be entirely sunk in that of the Christian ministry—anything which precludes ministers from taking part, in any circumstances, in promoting the political well-being of their country, or in seeking, in the use of lawful means, to have the regulation of national affairs directed to the advancement of the cause and kingdom of Christ. Ministers certainly show a spirit unworthy of their office, and indicate the low estate of their personal religion, when they ordinarily give much time or attention to anything but the direct and proper business of their office, and when they act as if they believed that the success of Christ’s cause was really dependent upon political changes, upon results to be accomplished by human laws; and scarcely anything short of downright immorality tends more powerfully to injure their usefulness, than in engaging keenly in the ordinary contentions of political partizanship which may be agitating the community. But since they are not required to abandon wholly the discharge of the duties, or the exercise of the rights, which devolve upon them as citizens, or to become indifferent to the temporal welfare or prosperity of their country; and since it can scarcely be disputed that, in point of fact, the way in which national affairs have been regulated and national laws framed, has often materially contributed to the obstruction or the advancement of Christ’s cause, it seems scarcely fair at once to condemn the conduct of those who may have done something directed to the object of securing the right regulation of national affairs, by means of vague allegations about the spirit of Christianity and the use of carnal weapons, etc., etc., without a careful examination of the particular things done, viewed in connection with the whole circumstances in which they took place. Many countries were so situated at the time of the Reformation, that it was scarcely possible to keep political and religious matters entirely distinct, and scarcely practicable for men who were interested in the welfare of true religion, to abstain from taking part in the regulation of national affairs; and the narrower the sphere of action, the more difficult, or rather impracticable, did such separation and abstinence often become. What John Knox did, was compelled to do, and did with so much advantage to his country, in Scotland, it was at least equally warrantable and necessary for Zwingle to do in the small canton of Zurich, and in the Helvetic confederation. And while this may be said generally of his taking some part in the regulation of the public affairs of his country, we are not aware that any evidence has been produced that he either recommended or approved of any of the public proceedings of Zurich and her confederate cantons, which were clearly objectionable on grounds of religion, equity, or policy. It is well known that he disapproved, and did what he could to prevent, the steps that led to the war in which he lost his life; and it was in obedience to the express orders of the civil authorities, and in the discharge of his duties as pastor, that, not without some melancholy forebodings, he accompanied his countrymen to the fatal field of Cappell. We cannot dwell upon this subject, but we have thought it proper to express our doubts, whether the disapprobation which some eminent men in the present day have indicated, of Zwingle’s conduct in this respect, is altogether well founded. We confess we are inclined to regard this disapprobation as originating rather in a narrow and sentimental, than in an enlarged and manly, view of the whole subject; and to suspect that it may have been encouraged by an unconscious infusion of the erroneous and dangerous principle of judging of the character of Zwingle’s conduct of the event—of regarding his violent death upon the field of battle as a sort of proof of his Master’s displeasure with the course he had pursued” (The Reformers and Theology of the Reformation, pp. 214-216). That some of the Covenanters went further than we think they were justified either by the law of God or man, must be admitted, but to brand the whole of them for the excesses of the few betrays a mind as narrow in its grasp of things as that of those it seeks to condemn. It is gratifying to notice that Dr Macpherson deals in a much more sympathetic way with the Cameronians, that much maligned body of witnesses, than is usually their lot.
Dr Macpherson in this essay has produced a book that must be taken account of by all writers dealing with the Covenanting struggle, whether they agree with his statement of the case or not. In a book dealing with so many points bristling with controversy one will find it necessary to disagree with the author at times. Particularly is this so with his statement (p. 146) where he asserts that the Covenanters’ attitude to the verbal inspiration of Scripture issued in Bibliolatry. One may hold the strictest views on verbal inspiration without being guilty of Bibliolatry, though it has become common with a modern school of theologians to trace a necessary connection between the two. The Covenanters obeyed the heavenly rule of placing God’s Kingdom first, and in doing so had fulfilled to them God’s promise. In the forefront they placed the claims of Christ’s headship in Church and in State—it is this great truth that vitalised their contentions—and there followed from the attainment of that truth the glorious heritage of civil and religious liberty that came at the Revolution in 1688.