Defending the Revolution: The Church of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, 1689–95

Abstract

With particular emphasis upon the revolution and the early years of William's reign, this article aims to shed some light on the nature of the relationship between church and parliament, in particular its importance to the church in promoting its vision for a reformed church in Scotland. The article focuses on the strategies used by the church to achieve their objectives. Effective organisation, careful and diligent lobbying of parliament and forthright presentation of their position through preaching, enabled them to galvanise their support within parliament and secure a settlement that not only disappointed their opponents but went beyond what William and erastian inclined Presbyterians would have preferred. It is quite clear that the church significantly influenced the nature and extent of the final ecclesiastical settlement. Consequently, the revolution provided the template for relations between church and parliament until the latter's dissolution in 1707.Presbyterian reaction to the prospect of incorporating union with England underlined the importance to the church of the Scottish parliament. 1 Obviously, ministers were concerned as Scotsmen about the loss of national sovereignty but Presbyterians did not trust a British parliament to safeguard and maintain the constitution of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. 2 From the outset of the revolution the 1 Edinburgh, National Archives of Scotland [NAS], CH2/1284/4, Presbytery of Dumfries, 250; CH1/2/5/4, f.227; PA7/28/65, Culross, Saline, Carnock and Torry[burn]; PA7/28/70, Glenkens (Balmaclellan, Carsphairn, Dalry and Kells); PA7/28/68, Dunkeld; PA7/28/49; Airth, Larbert, Dunipace and Denny; Unto his Grace Her

The “Glorious” Revolution’s Inglorious Religious Commitment: Why Parliamentary Rule Failed to Secure Religious Liberty

“…Generally speaking, in the settlement that followed the revolution those churches and sects that were part of the winning Williamite coalition, including Anglican Tory defectors from James II/VII, Protestant Dissenters, Irish Protestants, and Scottish Presbyterians, improved their position and enhanced their public influence. A host of restrictions and disabilities fell upon on the losers, including English Catholics, Stuart Loyalists, non-Trinitarian believers in England, Episcopalians and Dissenting Protestants in Scotland, and the Catholic majority and Dissenters in Ireland (Harris 1993(Harris , 2006Miller 1997;Raffe 2010aRaffe , 2010bRaffe , 2018Stephen 2010).…”

“…The new regime established a Presbyterian Kirk by act of the Scottish Parliament. Bishops were deposed and more than two hundred Episcopalian ministers were expelled, some of them by legislation, whereas others were purged by radical mobs (Raffe 2018;Stephen 2010). Ultimately, more than two-thirds of Episcopalian ministers were purged from the Kirk between 1689 and 1716, regardless of whether they were willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the new regime (Strong 2002: 11).…”

“…Finally, it constitutionally prohibited a Catholic from taking the throne and barred the king from appointing Catholics to offices in the church or government. Across the Three Kingdoms, the Williamite coalition enacted the key ecclesiastical reforms and constitutional safeguards demanded by its members but these did not include general safeguards on religious liberty or enact new identity rules that transcended confessional divisions (Harris 2006;Pincus 2009;Raffe 2018;Stephen 2010).…”

“…Whereas groups that were part of the winning Williamite coalition reaped the rewards of victory, those that were on the losing Jacobite (after Jacobus, the Latinized from of James) side could count on little protection. They were in jeopardy of oppression at the hands of the new regime and its allies (see, e.g., Clark 2000Clark , 2012Harris 1993Harris , 1999Harris , 2006Miller 1997;Raffe 2010aRaffe , 2010bRaffe , 2018Stephen 2010). This was "irresponsible" policy not only because it infringed on individual liberty but also because it stirred grievances that fueled decades of political instability and repeated Jacobite insurrections against the state.…”

‘A Legal Limited Monarchy’: Scottish Constitutionalism in the Union of Crowns, 1603–1707

“…Though 'two kingdoms' ecclesiology rejected erastian controls, the church embraced the legitimacy provided by parliamentary ratification. 159 Constitutionalist objections to Charles I in 1637 centred on his use of the royal prerogative to introduce ecclesiastical changes. Nevertheless, this paper does not advance a claim for precocious modernity or offer comfort for a 'narrative of Scottish constitutional exceptionalism' stretching from the Declaration of Arbroath to modern written constitutions.…”