The Scottish Presbyterian Movement in 1596.
Divers wickit and malicious personis, invying the quyet estait of the kirk and commoun wealth of this countrey, haifing preissit be leis, calmneis, fais clamouris and misreportis of his majesteis vertewous procedingis, to rais dissentioun betuix his hienes and the ministeris, and divers uther his subjectis; persewerit swa maliciouslie in thair godles practeisis, in the monethis of September, October, November and the beginning of December, in the yeir of God im vc lxxxxvi, to dispose the haertis of the nauchtiest and warst inclynit peopill to miscontentment and rebellioun. (1)
Fifteen ninety-six was not only the year in which Andrew Melville called King James VI "God's sillie vassall," a phrase that has been used to symbolize the Scottish presbyterian claim to some kind of power and jurisdiction independent ofthe crown. (2) It was also the year in which the presbyterian movement gathered its forces and took concerted action. The movement did not just pull the king's sleeve as Melville did, but challenged his control of his own government. Its challenge, moreover, had little to do with the much-discussed idea of "two kingdoms" of independent civil and religious jurisdiction--an idea which remained at best an unfulfilled aspiration. When the presbyterian movement took concerted action, this took various forms, but its campaigns were bidding unambiguously for political power.
This article is about the structure and aims of the movement. There were dramatic events in 1596, but, as we shall see, these have been discussed elsewhere, and are not my topic here. Instead I want to use the evidence generated by the events of 1596 to analyze a movement that had existed for some years before that date and continued to be active long afterwards. Its nature changed as the issues changed, but we shall not fully grasp either its nature or the issues until an in-depth analysis of its structure has been undertaken.
The term "presbyterian" calls for comment. Presbyteries--regional committees of ministers--had arisen gradually in the fifteen or so years before 1596. English presbyterian initiatives had been crushed, but Scottish presbyteries succeeded in eclipsing bishops. As in England, though, this had necessitated political struggle, with the most radical and committed Protestants espousing the presbyterian cause. In England, a movement of radical and committed Protestants would probably be called a "puritan" movement; I shall return to the implications of "puritanism" later. Just now it is sufficient to note that while Scotland's most radical and committed Protestants were presbyterians, their programme of action was a broad one that could well be characterized as puritan.
I. Presbyterian Activities in 1596
In investigating the movement's structure and personnel, four collective activities are worth considering: the launch of the "covenant" in March; the "declinature" of privy council jurisdiction by David Black and his supporters in November; the activities of the commission of the general assembly from October to December; and the attempted coup of December.
A covenant, launched in March 1596, helped to inspire political action by the movement. The covenant was an agreement with God to renew the sincerity of the participants' piety and godly activism. It was adopted collectively by church courts rather than individually, and the evidence survives only patchily, so one cannot reconstruct the presbyterian movement in full from it. The covenant was launched by the general assembly and adopted by two known synods. (3) This covenant was not a precise form of words, unlike the anti-Catholic "King's Confession" (or "Negative Confession") of 1581 which was later incorporated into the revolutionary National Covenant of 1638. David Mullan has shown that in the one parish in which we know what happened when the 1596 covenant was adopted, it lost any political dimension. Among politically-minded ministers involved in the covenant at higher levels, though, a confession of their sins and a public promise to be more zealous in their callings surely helped them summon the ideological strength to commit themselves to confrontational initiatives. (4)
The 1596 covenant was not just an affair for the ministers. Not only was it adopted by at least some individual congregations, but the laity were involved at higher levels too. In the presbytery of St Andrews, the covenant was renewed "be a verie frequent assemblie of gentilmen and burgesses, prepared for the purpose befor be thair ministers in everie paroche." The result was a military muster. (5) Protestant Scotland spent 1596 under military threat, externally from the second Spanish Armada, and internally from the "Catholic earls," a pro-Spanish political faction headed by the earl of Huntly. The Catholic earls had been exiled in 1595, but the king was planning to rehabilitate them on terms that the presbyterians feared would be far too lenient. Protestants were thus divided as to how to respond politically to the Catholic threat.
The leadership of the movement for much of 1596 was the commission of the general assembly. This was a standing committee of sixteen ministers who were empowered to take executive action on behalf of the church in between meetings of the general assembly of the church (which occurred once or twice a year). The commissioners gained centre stage as the presbyterian campaign intensified during 1596. They campaigned against the Catholic earls, lobbying the king, councillors, and courtiers, and rallying grassroots support.
One aspect of their campaign was the "declinature" of David Black, minister of St Andrews. A partial portrait of the presbyterian movement might have been drawn, had all the evidence survived, from the ministers who subscribed this document. Black preached some allegedly seditious sermons in October, and when called to account by the privy council, asserted that only the church courts could judge his pulpit utterances. His "declinature" (refusal) of the council's jurisdiction was adopted by the general assembly commissioners, who circulated it to all presbyteries for subscription on 20 November. (6) In response the king threatened to withhold stipends from ministers who refused his authority. Unlike the covenant, this was a purely clerical affair, but it demonstrates widespread radicalism among ministers.
The campaign culminated in what historians have misleadingly called a "riot" in Edinburgh on 17 December, but which was in reality an attempted coup d'etat spread over several days. (7) The participants' grievances concerned the king's favour to the Catholic earls. The central demand was that the king dismiss his current councillors, the eight so-called "Octavians," who were thought to be backing a covert pro-Spanish policy. Religion was important to this, but "religious" grievances had reached the point where the dispute was about who should be in charge of Scotland's government.
The recent series of meetings and military musters had clarified the movement's sense of how it should organize, and one of its grievances in December was the king's restriction of its right to organize. The movement's aristocratic leaders raised several hundred well-armed men at a few minutes' notice; they also brought a crowd onto the streets, demonstrating wide popular support. The presbyterians forced the king out of his capital on 17 December, and on the next day invited a number of Scotland's leading nobles to join them. If all had gone according to plan, these nobles would have constituted themselves a privy council in waiting. The king would have seen his support ebb away, and would have been forced to come to terms with the presbyterians in order to retain the ability to govern. Scotland had seen such coups before--notably in 1585, when a noble coalition had overthrown the regime of the earl of Arran. (8)
The coup achieved initial success on 17-18 December. The king fled to Linlithgow, where his support remained at a dangerously low level for several days. The English, keen to maintain their Protestant alliance with Scotland, indicated their support for the coup. The presbyterians launched a bond on the 18th that was intended to serve as a revolutionary manifesto. But they failed to attract the high-level noble support for which they hoped, and, within two weeks, King James was back in control. This article gathers the copious if scattered evidence generated by the coup, identifies the individuals and groups involved, and incorporates it in an analysis of the presbyterian movement. Far from being a clerical affair, or seeking to establish "two kingdoms," it was very much a mixed movement, with clergy and laity working together to achieve common political goals.
A discussion of the movement's personnel may begin with the core of its activists among the ministry. Surviving presbytery records are few, but the presbyteries of Peebles, Edinburgh, and Stirling subscribed Black's declinature, and only Glasgow can be shown not to have done so. (9) One presbyterian claimed that four hundred ministers subscribed--a number that may be exaggerated, but is likely to be in the right range. (10) Four hundred is a remarkably large figure. Scotland had about nine hundred parishes, but over four hundred were vacant in 1596. (11) The presbyterians seem to have had the active support of a clear majority of the ministers. Leadership came from the sixteen members of the commission of the general assembly, who all seem to have supported the movement in 1596; there is at least no evidence of disagreements among them as they steered it into a collision course with the crown. (12) The commissioners, like the movement as a whole, split after 1596; this will be touched on below.
The activists sought to publicize their cause. They did not print anything, either because of the small size of the Scottish printing industry (it issued only about a dozen different works altogether in 1596) or because of censorship. (13) However, they had a powerful propaganda tool in the pulpit. Sermons expounded the word of God, which could include direct political messages and calls to action. Any pulpit, at least in a town, could be a local rallying-point, as Black had shown in St Andrews. He had been at the centre of a local coup in 1593, when the presbyterians had taken over the burgh council with the aid of their supporters' armed force. (14) Nationally, the most crucial pulpit was that in St Giles' High Kirk in Edinburgh. When the general assembly commissioners were banished from Edinburgh on 14 December, they charged the capital's four ministers to continue and coordinate the campaign; these ministers thus took leading roles, but as representatives of a national body. (15)
Numerous other ministers participated, and some attracted individual attention. Michael Cranston, minister of Cramond, incited the initial meeting with the biblical story of Haman. Peter Hewat, minister of Colinton, took a letter from Robert Bruce to Lord Hamilton urging him to place himself at the head of the insurgents. (16) Robert Rollock, principal of the university of Edinburgh, also signed this letter and joined the second of two delegations to the king. (17) John Welsh, minister of Kirkcudbright, preached a fiery sermon expounding a version of the Calvinist theory of revolution. (18) An evidently incomplete total of sixteen ministers can be identified as participating; these included those indispensable historians and future antagonists David Calderwood and John Spottiswoode. (19) Spottiswoode later became an archbishop, a reminder that the movement was hOt a tightly organized party, and that those who supported it in 1596 did not necessarily continue to do so. However, the mutual "puritan" connections of Bruce, Rollock, Simson, Welsh, and others have recently been discussed, and there was evidently an esprit de corps among many of these leading figures. (20)
III. Nobles and Lairds
Noblemen were essential to the political aims of the movement. The presbyterians hoped, not to depose the king, but to place him in a position where he would have no practical alternative but to act as they wished. Of course, they hoped that he would be glad to cooperate, once his evil councillors were removed, but they were not counting on it. They intended to pack the court and administration with good councillors--their supporters. Ministers, by the presbyterians' own code, were debarred from playing a directly coercive political role (though they had powerful indirect sanctions, such as ecclesiastical discipline and even excommunication). To replace the Octavians in the government, and to keep the Catholic Earl of Huntly out of it, solid presbyterian nobles and lairds were needed. The general assembly commissioners on 20 October planned to pack the next general assembly with their supporters--"a good number of the best affected noblemen, baronis and commissionaris of burghes." (21) Although this suggests that ministers were co-ordinators and initiators of the movement, the king tended to see nobles, not ministers, as the leaders, later writing that "there never rose faction in the time of my minoritie, nor trouble sen-syne, but they that were upon that factious part, were ever carefull to perswade and allure these unruly spirits among the ministerie, to spouse that quarrell as their owne." (22) Clerical and lay wings of the movement, while asymmetrical, were complementary.
The presbyterian movement had long searched eagerly for noble patrons, but Keith Brown's survey of "godly magistrates" indicates that these were in short supply by the 1590s. (23) Still, for present purposes, the caution, apathy, and downright ungodliness of some nobles, and the active Catholicism of others, are less important than the continuance of a militant Protestant tradition in certain noble families. There were some influential nobles from whom the presbyterian ministers could reasonably expect support--and even leadership.
Noble leadership began when the movement turned from confrontational words to confrontational deeds. This began in a meeting of ministers, noblemen, and burgesses of Edinburgh on the morning of 17 December, in the Little Church of St Giles. They initially sent a delegation to the king making far-reaching demands, and, once rebuffed, launched an armed uprising.
The "nobles" in the Little Church included two peers, plus numerous lairds, landlords of lesser property who adhered to the same code of nobility. They were normally accompanied for public business by retinues of followers--"gentlemen" permanently resident in the lord's household, or lesser lairds with their own estates. The size of the retinue would depend on the power of its chief and the importance of his intended business on that occasion; ten or twenty would be typical for a greater laird or lesser peer. (24) Raising larger numbers would have been possible eventually, but the coup was not planned in advance, being an improvised response to an attempted crackdown by the king. Such planning as there was seems to have begun only on 16 December, and the actual decision to launch an uprising was taken only during the Little Church meeting on the morning of the 17th. (25)
This leads to the question of the numbers in the Little Church. An earlier presbyterian meeting there, for the renewal of the covenant on 30 March 1596, saw four hundred people present. (26) On 17 December there must have been at least as many: "so great was the throng as the ministers could hardly find entrance." (27) A government account referred to "the number of four or fyve hundreth men, with jakis, knapskais, corslattis, hagbuttis, pistolettis, pikis, halbertis, swerdis, gantillettis and utheris wappinis invasive." (28) These numbers tally well with impressions of the Little Church's capacity, and indicate a well-armed body--not the urban poor who also swarmed on the streets. As we shall see, fifteen nobles and lairds can be identified by name, and there were evidently other lairds. One English correspondent mentioned "16 or 17 barons [i.e. lairds] and some lords." (29) This may well be an underestimate, but even this number would represent a potentially sizeable armed presence. Nobles and lairds in such numbers, plus ten or twenty followers each, plus a few dozen Edinburgh burgesses, could easily have packed the Little Church with four or five hundred men accustomed to the use of weapons. Presumably they would not have taken all their weapons into church, but Edinburgh was a compact town, and they could fetch them from their lodgings within minutes.
Those in the Little Church were only a random selection of the nobles and lairds on whom Scotland's presbyterians might have drawn. The movement had not systematically gathered its followers in the capital in advance, and had to make do with those who happened to be there for other reasons. These reasons might have included business with the royal court, the court of session or other governmental institutions, or a wish to celebrate New Year in the capital. Similarly in Paris, at the Day of the Barricades in 1588, the Duke of Guise was present in the city. He did not know of the uprising in advance, but had good links with the "Sixteen" who organized it, and joined in once it had begun. (30)
An analysis of the individual lords involved in the movement on 17 December itself must recognize that there is no comprehensive list of them; nobody afterwards had a reason to compile one. Still, numerous sources mention numerous names, which when collated seem to produce a fairly full picture--though there are no doubt omissions, especially among lesser lairds and burgesses. Some indication of the leaders of the movement can also be gained from the membership of two delegations to the king on 17 December--one just before the uprising, the other in the late afternoon when the king had fled from Edinburgh to the palace of Holyroodhouse.
We may begin with the movement's two peers, both in the first delegation. (31) John, eighth Lord Forbes, was no stranger to the anti-Huntly cause--he was Huntly's main local rival in Aberdeenshire. He had fought against Huntly's father in the civil wars of 1567-73, and against Huntly himself in 1594. James, seventh Lord Lindsay, based in Fife, was the son of a very active Protestant with a long record. He was well-connected, as a gentleman of the chamber and a privy councillor. In 1594 he had taken a leading role in an expedition against the Catholic earls, and had persuaded the king to have Huntly's castle demolished. (32) During the uprising he was "so frack and zealous in the cause that day as that he put on a jack and marched upe the street therwith." (33)
Two Kennedy lairds from Ayrshire were prominent in most accounts of the coup, participating in both delegations. Thomas Kennedy of Bargany was an influential laird and veteran Protestant activist, and John Kennedy of Blairquhan, his ally, was exceptionally well-connected among the Protestant nobility. (34) They were in Edinburgh to support a legal case brought by their ally, Lord Ochiltree, against James Douglas of Torthorwald, who had recently killed Ochiltree's uncle, Captain James Stewart, the former Earl of Arran, who had been overthrown by the coup of 1585. With the Kennedy lairds was John Wallace of Craigie, an important Ayrshire laird, bailie of Kyle, from a family with a Protestant tradition. (35) There were also further lairds from the region; an eyewitness noted "a great number of the barrons of Kyle and Carrick who came in att that tyme with the Lord Uchiltrie to umquhill James Stewarts day of law." (36) Another figure linked to this group, though from Tweeddale, was Andrew Kerr of Faldonside, a member of the second delegation. (37) Kerr was a veteran Protestant activist who, in 1566, had helped to murder David Riccio in the presence of Mary Queen of Scots (Mary accused him of holding a pistol to her stomach). In 1574 he had married the reformer John Knox's widow, Margaret Stewart, sister of Captain James Stewart and aunt of Ochiltree.
Various other widely-scattered lairds can be discussed together. Six were warded or tried in January: Alexander Fairlie of Braid, Alexander Lauder of Halton, Robert Hamilton of Ecclesmachan, William Kirkcaldy of Grange, James Lockhart of Lee, and Sir James Edmondstone of Duntreath. (38) Braid and Halton were in Midlothian, adjacent to Edinburgh; Ecclesmachan was in West Lothian; Grange was in Fife; Lee was in Lanarkshire; Duntreath was in western Stirlingshire. Edmondstone was probably connected with his neighbour the Earl of Mar, who may have saved him from arrest. (39) Hamilton is interesting as the only known laird from that family; possibly others were elsewhere with their chief, Lord Hamilton. Nor was he from the family's Lanarkshire heartland. John Wishart of Pittarrow, from Kincardineshire, was in the second delegation, his father having been a stalwart of the Reformation. (40) Finally, there were two Highland chiefs: Duncan MacDougall of Dunollie, and Sir Lachlan Maclean of Duart who will be discussed later. (41)
Support for the coup was thus widespread in Scotland. The judicial indictment of four lairds said that other lairds were present, "sum of thame inhabitantis of the sherefdome of Fyfe, sum of Angus and Mairnis, uthers of Tueddell, Cliddisdaill and Levinox." (42) This is one of several indications that there were more lairds involved than the fifteen who can be identified by name. Fife, Angus, and Tweeddale could be covered by names already mentioned, but Clydesdale (the heartland of the Hamilton family) represents an addition to the range, as does the Lennox. Altogether we have records of individuals from almost every region of Scotland south of the Moray Firth. The exceptions, Berwickshire and Galloway, are not necessarily significant when it is remembered that the coup was not planned in advance. There was an extensive network of godly lairds in Berwickshire among the Home family, for instance. (43)
Once the presbyterians were committed to a coup, then, which further nobles did they hope to recruit, and how realistic were their hopes? A list of possible presbyterian supporters would be more comprehensive than a list of participants. However, evidence is available only for leading nobles; the presbyterians wrote to leading nobles seeking support on the 18th, and evidence of subsequent royal suspicion is available only for them. Such men, of course, would have been able to bring in further nobles and lairds as their supporters. (44)
The most prominent individual whom the presbyterians tried to recruit was John, Lord Hamilton, head of a major noble family, and heir presumptive to the throne after James himself and his children. Hamilton's sympathies were well known. In 1593, the synod of Lothian had received a report "of my Lord Hamiltouns gudwill toward the kirk and caus of religioun, declaring that his lordship had desyrit him to salut the assemble in his name as also to assure the kirk of his assistance in all materis they wald employ his lordship." (45) Hamilton panicked when he received the presbyterians' treasonable invitation, and rushed to submit to the king, but his horror was evidently mingled with much sympathy for their cause. It was reported within days that "the Lord Hamilton hath spoken very hotly to the king, and reproved his doings against the kirk." (46) He did not join the privy council while he was with James.
The king knew that Hamilton's letter was not the only one. He mentioned the ministers "wryting to the Lord Hamiltoun and utheris of our nobilitie to mak ane plaine rebellione against us." (47) The authorities seem to have been uneasy about uncovering the extent of the letters' distribution. When some ringleaders were tried, one of the accusations against them was the "procureing of nobilmen and utheris to be upoune thair faction, and part-taikeris of thair caus." When the judge ruled that this could be accepted only if the nobles concemed were named, the prosecution hastily dropped the accusation. (48)
The second really crucial figure was John Erskine, second Earl of Mar. The presbyterians certainly hoped for his support, and may have written to him as well as to Hamilton. (49) He was an enormously influential figure, trusted by the king, his former schoolmate; he had been custodian of Prince Henry since 1594. He was a friend of the ministers, having participated in the 1585 coup and in earlier ones. He had interceded with the king in favour of the presbyterians in 1595. (50) His support for godly causes may have been intensified by his feud with Lord Livingstone (recently appointed custodian of Princess Elizabeth), whose Catholic wife was a major issue. Mar was a strong supporter of the young Earl of Argyll (one of whose curators he was) in Argyll's conflicts with the Earl of Huntly.
When the uprising began, Mar was with the king in the tollbooth, and could not readily defect to the opposition on the spot; instead he was sent out to negotiate with them. The fact that Mat performed this duty illustrates his loyalty to the king, but also his standing with the presbyterians. The Octavians could not have been sent, for they might well have been killed. Thereafter Mar seems to have wavered in his loyalty, for he did not join James and the rump of the council in Linlithgow. However, on the king's return in force to Edinburgh (31 December), Mar commanded the troops that occupied the Castlehill and West Port. After the coup the king deliberately cultivated the service of those of suspect loyalty, so as to rebuild a broad coalition.
Archibald Campbell, seventh Earl of Argyll, was another well-known supporter of the presbyterians and opponent of Huntly. He headed an extensive Highland kindred which carried considerable political weight in the Lowlands too. (51) Argyll had led an army against Huntly in 1594, but had been defeated at the battle of Glenlivet. By 1596, when James was seeking to rehabilitate Huntly, Argyll's continued animosity had cost him the king's favour. On 17 December he was in Stirling, while his ally, Sir Lachlan Maclean of Duart, also a committed presbyterian, was a member of the Little Church meeting. Maclean promptly rode to Stirling to invite Argyll to join the coup. Maclean and Argyll were hurrying to Edinburgh on the morning of the 18th when they met the royal party going in the opposite direction. The king summoned Argyll to his presence, and, "after some notes of Argyll's haste in that journey yielded to the earl good countenance and grace", he kept Argyll with him and brought him to Linlithgow, dismissing him the next day on condition that he returned to Stirling. (52) At Maclean's death in 1598 the king was still angrily recalling the encounter, knowing that he had intended "to fetch the earl of Argyll to have assisted the kirk." (53) Argyll's adherence to the coup had been averted by sheer royal luck.
The fourth likely magnate on the presbyterians' list was James Cunningham, sixth Earl of Glencairn. He was the grandson of one of the most committed and prominent noble supporters of the Reformation, and he himself took part in the Ruthven Raid of 1582, showing his own Protestant commitment. He had done little on the national stage since then, though he retained nominal membership of the privy council. On 21 December the king in Linlithgow sent for Hamilton, Glencairn, and other nobles and barons--evidently those whose loyalty was suspect. (54)
Andrew Stewart, third Lord Ochiltree, attempted like Mar to mediate in the crisis, and the presbyterians must have hoped to recruit him. He was based in Ayrshire and had close links with the Kennedy lairds, he was also the nephew of Knox's widow, Margaret Stewart. Ochiltree and the Kennedys had met in Ayr in 1593 on business "anent the religioun." (55) The king "had ever great favor and lyking" for him, but succeeded in detaching him from the former ultra-Protestant Earl of Bothwell only in early 1595. (56) After the coup, Ochiltree interceded on behalf of John Welsh, one of the presbyterian ministers. (57)
One of those to whom the presbyterians wrote was Walter Scott of Buccleuch, an influential Border laird "of whose assistance they held themselves assured." (58) His chief claim to fame was his daring rescue from Carlisle Castle of William Armstrong of Kinmont ("Kinmont Willie") in April 1596, which had delighted patriotic Scots and created a diplomatic incident with the English. Scott may not have been pro-English, but he was evidently no friend to the Octavians. (59) He would have brought substantial military support to the cause.
There is also evidence of the nobles in whom the presbyterians placed hopes before the coup. On 22 November, the general assembly commissioners decided that certain nobles attending the princess's baptism should be "spokin with" about the Catholic threat: the Earls of Mar, Crawford, Argyll, and Montrose, and Lord Hamilton. (60) Mar, Argyll, and Hamilton were nobles of whom they had high hopes, and Montrose, though less committed, was at least a Protestant and politically active. Crawford, a former partisan of Huntly, was a more unusual choice. However, he had not worked with Huntly since 1589, and had at least formally converted to Protestantism. He had been one of the nobles with whom the general assembly had discussed the Catholic threat in 1593. (61) He had even worked with Hamilton in July 1596. (62)
So there could have been several motives for nobles and lairds to join the coup, including factional rivalry at local and national level, or family ties. In general, though, this was a movement of convinced Protestants who were prepared to put their religion--broadly construed to include views about politics and diplomacy--above other commitments. Many of those involved had long records of Protestant activism, or came from families or networks with such records. Thomas Kennedy of Bargany and Andrew Kerr of Faldonside had signed the First Book of Discipline in 1561. (63) Margaret Stewart, Kerr's wife and Knox's widow, had been part of a distribution network for radical Protestant propaganda in 1574, and Robert, father of Alexander Fairlie of Braid, had also been in trouble over this. (64) Faction was incidental to such a movement; religious ideology was central.
Burgesses of Edinburgh formed an important element in the movement. (65) They could form intense, long-lasting relationships with their ministers, and they were well armed: "a great number of tounsmen, quhilkis wer thocht maist zealous in relligioun, and hanted in the companie of the ministeris, pat thame selfes in airmes, some in corsleatis and sum uther wayis." (66) The leaders of the insurrection used symbols of local power, such as the drum and common bell by which the burgesses were mustered in arms. Edward Johnstone, merchant, "cryit, 'To armes!', to 'Stryke the swasch!' and 'Ryng the commoun bell!'." (67) They took possession of the town gates, which had to be opened specially for the king's departure in the afternoon. (68) During the uprising, "the inhabitants off Edinburgh stood reddie in armes keiping the strete (which charge was committed to them at that tyme) and would surfer no man to go unto the Tolbouthe to succour the king." (69) This may well have echoed existing military organization by which the burgh periodically provided a guard for the king. (70) One armed troop "exceiding fyve or sex hundreth men" guarded the High Street, while "ane uthir troup ... extending to the number of thrie or foure hundreth men" besieged the tolbooth. (71)
Burgesses provided the only signs of advance planning for the coup. Twenty-four burgesses arranged with the Edinburgh ministers to provide armed protection and support for them on about 16 December. It was the royal order for these burgesses to leave Edinburgh that ignited the spark for the uprising. (72) At least twenty-one burgesses attracted individual attention from the authorities. They were not councillors, though some were wealthy. Several of them may have been among the twenty-four who made military preparations; there is direct proof of this in four cases. (73)
Some details of individual burgesses provide an impression of the movement in Edinburgh. The sources are patchy, and the absence of Edinburgh kirk session records makes it impossible to trace burgesses' formal involvement with the church. (74) Edward Johnstone was mentioned repeatedly and was evidently a ringleader. Alexander Vaus may well have been the first who "cryit the sword of Gedioun, the sword of Gedioun." (75) The movement's intellectual side is illustrated by the participation of members of the book trade. Edward Cathkin, bookseller, included most of the presbyterian ministers among his customers. (76) His brother James would be summoned before the high commission in 1619 for non-conformity. (77) James was a skinner, and Edward had been one, as was William Little; skinners could be involved in bookbinding, and Andrew Hart was a bookbinder as well as bookseller (he later became a printer too). (78) William Rig's career looked both forward and back. He was married to Katherine Row, daughter of one of the "six Johns" who had compiled the First Book of Discipline in 1560-61, and he would be imprisoned in 1624 for nonconformity. (79)
How many burgesses were involved altogether? The privy council on 20 December mentioned a figure of 1,200 "gentlemen, burgesses and craftsmen" participating in the uprising. (80) A slightly later official account mentioned 400 or 500 well-armed men. (81) Neither figure can have been based on an accurate census, but the "craftsmen" mentioned by the privy council were evidently not all burgesses; the rest were presumably journeymen, a less well-off group who would not all have been armed. Prosperous burgesses had servants and apprentices who were not just labourers, but were more like business colleagues. Such men were expected to be armed. While some burgesses came alone to military musters, others brought up to half a dozen followers. (82)
The allegiance of the burgh council itself is worth considering. The council could be assertive towards the crown; it may well have been behind the riot of 28 May 1589, demanding that James make a Danish marriage to assist the Baltic trade. (83) In 1596 it was the magistrates (the provost and four bailies who led the council) who pacified the uprising, which the king and his councillors could not do. Several accounts have some or all of the bailies as members of the first delegation to the king. (84) It certainly seems likely that they were in the Little Church meeting. On 20 December the magistrates were charged to arrest five ministers and ten burgesses, but they clearly disobeyed, since the ministers left only on the 23rd and were not arrested. (85) Spottiswoode wrote that "the council of the town excused themselves" from signing the presbyterian bond, indicating that they would have liked to sign if they had dared. (86) Bruce, similarly, wrote that "the most part of the magistrats say they were inclyned to us." (87)
The king blamed the burgh council for the uprising--in itself a comment on where the council's sympathies lay--and sought to punish the burgh. The council defended their own ministers, and the privileges of the burgh, as long as they could. (88) Despite intense pressure over several months they avoided coming in the king's will for treason (which could have led to arbitrary punishment). They insisted on 15 March that they were "innocent and cleyne of all cryme and thairfore ... thai can nocht cum in his majesties will." (89) They were backed by Walter Stewart, the leading Protestant among the Octavians. (90) In the eventual agreement, Edinburgh promised not to reinstate the four ministers, and to pay the king 20,000 merks (13,333 [pounds sterling] Scots, 1,111 [pounds sterling] sterling); the king had wanted 60,000 [pounds sterling]. (91) By then the council was defending burgh privileges rather than presbyterian radicalism per se, but its determination to do so was surely combined with sympathy for the movement.
V. The Crowd
The most numerous group involved in the coup was also the one about which least is known: the crowd. Ministers, as public orators, could rally wide popular support. On 17 December the crowd seems to have assembled within minutes. An early modern crowd was a local body--it never travelled far, and could not easily be coordinated with crowds in other localities. It was also usually an urban body. Since towns, and particularly Edinburgh, were the seats of government, this was where it was important to capture power.
The crowd was distinct from the armed forces provided by nobles' retinues and burgesses. Ordinary folk were not accustomed to warfare, and an angry crowd was not primarily a fighting force. Nevertheless, this crowd was taking direct action, not merely demonstrating in support of a political position. (92) If those surrounding the Edinburgh tollbooth had broken in, they might well have killed the Octavians.
The evidence for the crowd's exact nature and size, as often in such cases, is partisan and allusive. James VI had the crowd of 1596 in mind when he wrote Basilicon Doron shortly afterwards, and painted a vivid picture of "some fierie spirited men in the ministerie" who "begouth to fantasise to themselves, a democratick forme of govemement" and "fed themselves with the hope to become Tribuni plebis: and so in a populare government by leading the people by the nose, to beare the sway ofall the rule." (93) By contrast, the presbyterian John Row, echoing a more famous predecessor, dismissed the crowd defensively as the "rascall multitude." (94)
Many of those in the crowd were women. One source related that "Capt. Gray was well knock'd with halberds and staves, and that of the wives as well as of the men; for the night before he vowed to mow down the carles." (95) Staves are credible weapons of the "multitude"; presumably the halberds were wielded by the experienced armed men. Women gained prominence in the afternoon, when the violent insurrection had ceased and the king felt it safe to emerge from the tollbooth. Those with weapons had departed or put them away, but the crowd had not dispersed, and an eyewitness saw
a world of people in number, of all sorts of ranks and qualities, covering the wholl street from the one syde to the other betuixt Sanct Geils Church and the Nether-Bow. The four papist lords for verie feare went hard by his majesties syde ... All the way the burgess wyfes crying as the king went doun the street, "put away the papist lords, make us quyte of Huntlye and all his faction, the favourers of the Spaniards". The king bade the baillies stay the wyfes tounges. (96)
Although no strangers to physical violence, women may have been more used to verbal protest than men, or, being less likely to be punished, may have been more willing to defy the king to his face. There was a distinctive female spirituality associated with the presbyterians, which could easily mobilize women into public involvement with the cause, though its role in these events is hard to trace. (97)
The final group supporting the movement was of a nature different from all the others, though it exercised considerable political influence in Scotland in the 1590s. This was the English government. The English were natural supporters of the presbyterians, not through principled support for presbyterian ideals but through the exigencies of diplomacy. With English forces fighting on three fronts--the maritime war with Spain, the French civil wars, and the Irish rebellion--it was vital to keep Scotland aligned with England. (98) The Catholic Earls and the Octavians threatened that alignment, so their opponents had to be supported. The English ambassador, Robert Bowes, described the presbyterian ringleaders, Lords Lindsay and Forbes, as "religious and loving the amity"; "amity" was the code-word for the Anglo-Scottish Protestant alliance. (99) Bowes stayed in Edinburgh throughout the attempted coup, sided with the presbyterians as far as he could, and did his best to defend them from the subsequent royalist crackdown. (100) One commentator thought that if Bowes had been involved in planning the coup, "it would not have been so fondly enterprised, and so slimly left." (101)
The Scots thought that this depended on factional politics within England. They tended to see Sir Robert Cecil as a potential favourer of Spain, and his rival the Earl of Essex as more committed to international Protestantism; in 1596 their rivalry was more intense than ever. (102) The exiled ministers Bruce and Balcanquhal tried to exploit this, warning Essex against James's current courtiers as "men who have of late cropen in credit, devoted, as appears, to the Spanish course, and to the service of the intestine enemy"--which last phrase Essex must have been intended to read as meaning that the Octavians favoured Cecil's faction. (103) In the event, Cecil's faction made no attempt to favour either the Octavians or the Spanish, so this attempt to foment an interlocking British factional crisis got nowhere.
VII. Two Kingdoms?
Where was the idea of "two kingdoms" in all this? After the royalist reaction and re-establishment of episcopacy, the presbyterian David Calderwood looked back regretfully on 1596 as the year of greatest "perfectioun" and "puritie" for the church. (104) Michael Lynch has shown that in many ways it was nothing of the kind. It was only under the despised episcopalian regime, established gradually in the period 1597-1610 and dominant thereafter, that all parishes were at last planted with Protestant ministers, that stipends became adequate, and that effective measures were taken against Catholic recusancy. (105) But since Calderwood knew this, it only makes it all the more important to establish what he meant by "perfectioun." Stipends were all very well, but he was fundamentally interested in two ideals.
The first ideal was doctrinal and organizational purity, in which the church took the correct line on such things as summary excommunication and the form of the communion service, and had the correct (presbyterian) form of polity. Whether communion was actually celebrated in remote rural parishes was a lesser issue. The second ideal was political control of the church, and of all governmental matters to do with religion, by godly men--in practice, the presbyterians themselves or those they trusted. This, which Michael Graham has termed "presbyterian political divinity," cannot be overstressed. (106) Although, as orthodox Calvinists, they could not say that authority should be exercised only by the elect, it was nevertheless highly preferable that it should be; and they must have doubted whether the Octavians (and indeed, perhaps, the king who appointed them) were among the elect. So long as they had these two crucial things, purity and control, they were being true to God; and the rest--the mundane matters of glebes and stipends--would eventually be added. After 1596, they lost both, at least for the time being; more will be said about this later.
More can be said here about political control. This was not about maintaining--or establishing--"two kingdoms" of separate jurisdiction. Scotland was a unified, sovereign state, with the crown in parliament as the sovereign authority which could legislate even for the church. (107) Like any government department, the church had areas of administrative autonomy (notably in ecclesiastical discipline), but these were supervised and regulated by the sovereign authority. James Kirk has presented the idea of "two kingdoms" as a radical claim (and to some extent as a political reality before 1584), while Gordon Donaldson has emphasized the asymmetry of the concept and the practical impossibility of two separate "kingdoms" really existing. (108)
The two kingdoms as the presbyterians conceived them were, as Andrew Melville said, the kingdom of James VI, in which James exercised authority, and the kingdom of Christ, in which Christ--and, in practice, his earthly representatives the ministers--exercised authority. James's authority gave him no right to do anything ungodly, and it was the ministers who decided what was and was not godly. In 1591 James told some ministers that he had "soverane judgement in all things within this realme." Robert Pont (who would later participate in the 1596 coup) rejoined that "There is a judgement above yours ... and that is God's, putt in the hand of the ministrie; for we sall judge the angels, sayeth the Apostle." John Davidson added that the difference between the ministers' and the king's jurisdiction was that "their office consisted for the most part in words, but his in deids; lett see upon what malefactor in Scotland his sword did strike." (109) This did not mean that ministers and king had jurisdiction over two different areas, but that they had--or so it was claimed--different roles in governing the same areas. The ministers were the judges; the king was the executioner.
During the presbyterian campaign of 1596, the idea of "two kingdoms" was most prominent with David Black's declinature of privy council jurisdiction. The presbyterians claimed that they were not denying royal authority, merely that it was the general assembly which should exercise jurisdiction over sermons. They insisted that this was all right because the general assembly was subject to royal authority--though they did not expect this authority to include a royal veto over assembly decisions. (110) However, their complaint was not simply that a civil body was policing sermons; the presbyterians would be no happier in 1610 when the court of high commission, an ecclesiastical body dominated by bishops, was established for this purpose. The real issue with Black's sermons was not who had jurisdiction over them, but whether he was saying the right things in them. What he was saying, in effect, was that the king and his policies were ungodly. The presbyterian movement saw it as its mission to make them godly--by any means possible. Legalistic hair-splitting about jurisdiction was one way of furthering the cause, but when that failed, the movement took direct action, aiming to seize control of the king's government and to change his councillors by force.
The problem with the "two kingdoms" theory, or with any attempt to separate "church" and "state" in the sixteenth century, was that the two concepts were incommensurable. (111) There were few matters to do with governance on which the Bible did not provide comment or guidance, as religious leaders were quick to remind ungodly rulers. If a king wanted to formulate a foreign policy, this had to be godly. If he wanted to appoint councillors, they had to be godly. The presbyterian demands during the 1596 coup were about foreign policy and royal councillors. This was a logical stance for a movement that sought to create a godly society, but it was not about creating separate fields for religious and civil authority.
The presbyterian movement, as it has been anatomized here, was a network of people who took common, public action on specific, controversial issues. The movement mobilized people and made them take sides. Those who took arms in support of the attempted coup were being particularly militant, but even those who signed Black's declinature were taking a provocative stand. By using their actions as a criterion for their allegiance, this article avoids the problem of circularity sometimes apparent in English studies that have assumed particular individuals to be "puritans" and then used them as evidence for what puritans were like. (112) By focusing on one episode, it also avoids the problem of deciding whether a particular individual was "really" a presbyterian (or not) on the basis of his entire career. The events of 1596 themselves make this problematic, because some of those who supported the coup later rallied to the crown. Calderwood and Welsh remained presbyterians in the seventeenth century; Spottiswoode and Nicolson accepted bishoprics. It can be said, simply and confidently, that all these ministers were presbyterians in 1596.
The presbyterian movement comprised both clergy and laity. This should be stressed, since some specialist studies have treated it essentially as a movement of ministers. (113) Authors of textbooks and non-specialist works, indeed, have tended to write simply of "the church" (or "the kirk"), making the questionable assumption that the radical movement represented the church as a whole, and thus losing sight of the existence of a distinct radical movement. The mixed nature of the movement should occasion no surprise in a comparative context. That the English puritan movement comprised laity as well as clergy has long been known. (114)
The movement organized itself openly around presbyteries and synods, and around ad hoc meetings of lay supporters, that could take action in the form of public lobbying. In January 1593, for instance, the presbyterians had used the Little Church, as they would do again in 1596, as a base for two days of meetings and negotiations with the king about the Catholic threat. One delegation to Holyrood was "accompanied with the magistrates and manie citicens of Edinburgh," one or two thousand strong. Such numbers must have seemed menacing even without weapons. The presbyterian leaders included Lords Lindsay, Forbes, and Hamilton, Thomas Kennedy of Bargany, Andrew Kerr of Faldonside, William Little, burgess of Edinburgh, and Robert Bruce, minister of Edinburgh. All these except Hamilton (whose adherence was eagerly sought) would participate in the 1596 coup. (115)
The movement was open because it had not recently experienced direct government hostility; it had not needed to go underground. Since 1592 at least, the king had usually tried to treat presbyterians as partners. In their eagerness to combat the Catholic earls, they had sometimes sought to bypass royal authority, but in no clandestine way. In 1594, the general assembly demanded "that the haill subjects be chargeit to put themselves in armes ... in full readines to persew and defend, as they salbe certified be his majestie, or utherwayes findand the occasioun urgent." James's reply put his finger on the difference between his and the presbyterians' conception of authority: "To be ready at my charge is very meit; but I understand not the last clause of urgent occasioun." (116) This was an openly-expressed difference of opinion, not a secret organization.
This openness probably made it harder for the presbyterians to mobilize when they felt themselves forced to improvise their coup. A "cellular structure" was important for a successful early modern revolutionary movement. (117) In Paris in 1588, barricades enabled each district to be taken over by local committees. (118) A network of autonomous underground committees enabled a movement to survive government hostility. By contrast, presbyteries and synods were flexible bodies which could be convened rapidly, but were not clandestine. The openness of presbyterian organization is illustrated by the events of 16 December, when twenty-four Edinburgh burgesses initiated military preparations. Because there was little attempt at concealment, the privy council could take pre-emptive action against them.
It would be worth investigating how and when an underground presbyterian movement developed, but it is clear that such a movement belongs to the years after 1596. Even in 1605, the presbyterians' unauthorized general assembly in Aberdeen was an openly-staged campaign. (119) The ministers who were then exiled probably developed a clandestine support network. A fully-fledged movement of "conventicles" began in 1619, when the Five Articles of Perth introduced a new ceremonial form of communion service and forced even lay people who wished to receive communion in the traditional way to create underground networks of support. (120)
Scotland's presbyterian movement fits one of the standard definitions of English puritanism: a movement that advocated further reform of the church in a Protestant direction. English puritanism had many facets, and only a few of the Scottish parallels to them have been investigated here. Still, it is always worth drawing parallels when one can. The actual term "puritan" began to be current in Scotland only in the early seventeenth century, and was never as common as in England--but one of its earliest Scottish uses came when King James applied it to the insurgents of 1596. (121)
To what extent, then, was the presbyterian movement "puritan"? This question primarily concerns puritanism as a public movement committed to "further reformation." Peter Lake has commented on this: "The advantage of this approach is clarity of definition; on this view we know what we mean and what we are looking for in calling someone or something 'Puritan.'" (122) Objections to established church government are easily identified (though recording of them may fluctuate if official pressure to conform fluctuates). More problems arise with another type of definition: puritanism as a style of piety, in which puritans tended not to do different things from other people but to do more, or more intense versions, of the same things. The two definitions are umbilically linked, with the puritanically pious often being impelled to public action, so the problem does not disappear by concentrating on the public "puritan movement." However, a reaffirmation of the existence, in Scotland, of a political movement committed to "further reformation" may retrieve a little of Professor Lake's "clarity of definition."
Two historians have recently discussed "puritanism" in Scotland, but have not defined it as a movement seeking "further reformation." For David Mullan, Scottish "puritanism" is Calvinist doctrine and piety; for Margo Todd, it is godly parish discipline. (123) These are two different topics, both valid, both important, and neither the same as the topic of the present article. Any debate that I may have about "puritanism" with Professors Mullan and Todd will not be about matters of central concern to them. Nevertheless, some comments may be in order.
Professor Mullan is well aware of the division between presbyterians and episcopalians, having written an entire previous book on that subject. (124) His puritanism book, too, uses the terms "presbyterian" and "episcopalian" freely. Although "puritan" piety was practised by individuals on both sides, most of his "puritans" are presbyterians, and they exclude episcopalians from their "brotherhood," much to the latter's frustration. 125 Indeed Professor Mullan produces special arguments to include the occasional episcopalian--notably William Cowper, a presbyterian until 1606 at least, who became a bishop in 1612. "His movement from support for presbytery into the king's camp brought him considerable conflict," Mullan notes, "but his conversion experience and struggles toward assurance of faith identify him with the piety of puritanism." (126) This piety is an internal matter, but when Professor Mullan's "puritans" take public action, they tend to be hostile to bishops and religious ceremonies. Like English puritans, they want "further reformation" in a Protestant direction, or resistance to royal innovations perceived to run in the opposite direction. It was Cowper's abandonment of this cause by accepting his bishopric that angered the presbyterians.
Professor Todd's topic is godly discipline, something of which episcopalians usually approved as much as presbyterians--though episcopalians were obliged to adapt their attacks on Catholicism to the exigencies of the king's foreign policy or unionist agenda. (127) Her book is largely based on kirk session records, where political controversies such as those of 1596 rarely feature. More relevant here is an article in which she has used William Cowper to argue that consensus was more important than controversy in early seventeenth-century Scottish religion. (128) However, Cowper is untypical. Presbyterians did not agree with him; David Hume of Godscroft conducted a lengthy and bitter public debate with him. From the episcopalian side, Archbishop Spottiswoode also disapproved of him. (129) Neither a committed presbyterian nor a committed episcopalian could be an enthusiast for the mixed Jacobean polity, though the beliefs of a committed episcopalian included respect for the royal authority that directed it. (130) In fact, hardly anyone explicitly espoused the principle of a mixed polity. Bishops generally hoped that episcopacy would supersede presbytery, though Professor Mullan has argued that few rank and file ministers agreed with them. (131) However, they did have to live with bishops in the meantime. Professor Todd sees three groups in the debate: "radical presbyterians" atone extreme, "the king and a coterie of his episcopal henchmen" at the other, and moderates (whether of presbyterian or episcopalian sympathies) in the middle and happy to compromise. She regards both extremes as marginal. (132) This may be a helpful way of approaching this issue, though it focuses more on ministers than I would do. However, the level of support enjoyed by a dissident movement is not readily measured by routine official documents, and studies of Scotland's committed presbyterians will have to look beyond the minutes of kirk sessions and presbyteries. The present article has offered one way of doing so.
There was consensus on some important issues between the members of the movement and their opponents. They all subscribed to Calvinist Protestantism, to evangelical preaching and catechizing, and to coercive action against Catholics. But this point cannot be used to disprove the existence of the movement without also disproving the existence of modern political parties, which often agree quietly on broad principles while disagreeing fiercely about the details. It may be the details that matter. King and presbyterians in 1596 both wanted the Earl of Huntly to convert to Protestantism, but their disagreement over the terms to be offered to him marked a fundamental policy conflict.
The presbyterian movement declined for some years after 1596. A full study of this topic would be beyond the scope of this article, but a few comments are in order, as they illuminate the nature of the movement itself. Some participants changed sides, perhaps reacting to the perceived excesses of the coup: John Spottiswoode's trajectory from ultra-presbyterian to committed episcopalian has recently been traced. (133) Some remained presbyterian but cautioned against misguided zeal: Alexander Hume reproved the coup's leaders thus. (134) Some were drawn in without deep commitment to the cause: Robert Rollock signed the notorious letter to Hamilton but soon persuaded the king that he had done so out of naivety, and retreated from the political stage. (135) The fact that the movement gained the adherence of all these men in 1596, particularly a luminary like Rollock, underlines its compelling ideological attraction in appealing successfully not just to radical but to mainstream Protestant values. This was a movement at the height of its powers and credibility.
The decline was about more than the failure of the coup; bigger shifts were afoot in Scottish politics. The Spanish Armada of 1596 was scattered and destroyed by a storm, a third Armada in 1598 also failed, and with the death of Philip II of Spain in that year, the external Catholic threat evaporated. (136) Within Scotland, Huntly was forced to convert formally to Protestantism in 1597; few can have thought this sincere, but his Counter-Reformation challenge was over. The divisions provoked by the Octavians were reconciled by a new understanding between king and nobility in 1598, and tension eased further in 1601, when the king secured an assurance of the English succession. (137) Nevertheless, the movement continued in existence, and gained new recruits and new causes in which to fight. The gradual reintroduction of episcopacy in the early seventeenth century provoked vigorous resistance in many synods and presbyteries. (138)
The issues thus changed over time. In 1596, the movement's immediate demands concerned anti-Catholicism. Huntly and his associates were to be crushed, his alleged sympathizers (notably the Octavians) were to be removed from the government, and military mobilization against the Spanish threat was to be stepped up. Then the church itself was to receive adequate funding, especially for ministers' stipends. Finally, there was to be coercive action against popular ungodliness, such as sabbath-breaking or visits to holy wells. This was a long and demanding list, but noticeably absent from it was anything to do with the doctrine, polity, or worship of the church. The Scottish confession of faith, adopted in 1560, contained nothing doctrinally objectionable to the movement; presbyterianism had been established by the "Golden Act" of 1592, and there were no obnoxious ceremonies. This contrasts with the English church at this time, since English puritans were unhappy with numerous issues in these areas. Doctrine would remain uncontroversial in Scotland, but after 1596 the king began to alter polity, and then worship, in ways that the presbyterians disliked.
The movement was concerned with national issues, rather than the local dynamics of godliness. In puritan Dorchester, lay and ecclesiastical authorities worked together to suppress fornication and drunkenness, to relieve poverty, and to improve education, all with the aid and exhortation of an active ministry. (139) Had Scotland's presbyterian movement gained power in 1596, it might well have instituted an attack on local ungodliness; it said much about this during the renewal of the covenant. After the coup there was a national witchcraft panic, something on which presbyterians and king could both agree--though the panic collapsed in mutual recriminations. (140)
The question of the public issues on which the presbyterian movement acted should thus be refined--both for 1596 and (though this is not my main focus here) for previous and subsequent years. It is not just a matter of public action, but of levels of militancy. Was the movement prepared to take a stand in open opposition to the king? In the period leading up to the coup, and even during the few days in which the coup seemed to be succeeding, many in the movement may have thought that they were offering the king frank but constructive advice that he would accept once his evil councillors had been disposed of. Once it became clear that the king was moving in a different direction, and had the power to do so, many presbyterians concluded that they could not afford to disobey. That does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes implied, that they changed their minds about the substantive issues; they may simply have concluded that disobedience was not practical politics. If the coup had succeeded, the king would have had to accommodate himself to the presbyterians, who would thus have been able to say, and even think, that they had never been disobedient: "Treason doth never prosper." This article has taken a snapshot at a point in time where specific evidence presents itself, but the movement that it depicts had existed before 1596 and continued to be important well into the seventeenth century. Like all movements it adapted itself to changing circumstances, but whenever political opportunities presented themselves, as they later dramatically did in 1637-38 with the National Covenant, organized presbyterian radicalism was a powerful force helping to shape the history of early modern Scotland.
(1) Robert Pitcairn (ed.), Criminal Trials in Scotland, 1488-1624, 3 volumes (Bannatyne Club, 1833) [hereafter cited as Pitcairn (ed.), Trials], II, i, pp. 29-30.
(2) James Melville (Robert Pitcaim, ed.), Autobiography and Diary. 1556-1610 (Wodrow Society, 1842) [hereafter cited as Melville, Diary], p. 370. "Sillie" = weak. Those who have quoted the phrase include J.H. Burns, The True Law of Kingship: Concepts of Monarchy in Early-Modern Scotland (Oxford, 1996), p. 225; Gordon Donaldson, Scotland: James V-James VII (Edinburgh, 1965), p. 194; James Kirk, "'Melvillian' Reform in the Scottish Universities," in Alasdair A. MacDonald, Michael Lynch, and Ian B. Cowan (eds.), The Renaissance in Scotland (Leiden, 1994), p. 277; Maurice Lee, Great Britain's Solomon: James VI and I in his Three Kingdoms (Urbana, Illinois, 1990), p. 79; Alan R. MacDonald, The Jacobean Kirk, 1567-1625: Sovereignty, Limrgy and Polity (Aldershot, 1998), p. 64; Roger A. Mason, "George Buchanan, James VI and the Presbyterians," in Roger A. Mason (ed.), Scots and Britons: Scottish Political Thought and the Union of 1603 (Cambridge, 1994), p. 123; David L. Smith, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707 (Oxford, 1998), p. 17; and Jenny Wormald, Court, Kirk and Community: Scotland, 1470-1625 (London, 1981), p. 184.
(3) MacDonald, Jacobean Kirk, p. 62. In the notional presbyterian system (still incomplete in 1596), Scotland had about fifty presbyteries with about twenty ministers in each, with above them a dozen or so synods and then the general assembly: Peter G. B. McNeill and Hector L. MacQueen (eds.), Atlas of Scottish History to 1707 (Edinburgh, 1996), pp. 390-91.
(4) David G. Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 1590-1638 (Oxford, 2000), pp. 189-95.
(5) Melville, Diary, pp. 360-62.
(6) National Library of Scotland [hereafter cited as NLS], "Copie of the Minute Buik of the Actis maid be the Commissioneris of the Generall Assemblie," Wodrow Quarto, XX, no. 18, fos. 160r.-167v., at fo. 166r.
(7) This is discussed in Julian Goodare, "The Attempted Scottish Coup of 1596," in Julian Goodare and Alasdair A. MacDonald (eds.), Sixteenth-Century, Scotland: Essays in Honour of Michael Lynch (Leiden, 2008), where the case for seeing the events as a coup d'etat is set out in more detail.
(8) Maurice Lee, John Maitland of Thirlestane and the Foundation of the Stewart Despotism in Scotland (Princeton, N J, 1959), pp. 61-79; Ruth Grant, "The Making of the Anglo-Scottish Alliance of 1586," in Goodare and MacDonald (eds.), Sixteenth-Century Scotland, pp. 219-21.
(9) MacDonald, Jacobean Kirk, pp. 67-68.
(10) William Scot (David Laing, ed.), An Apologetical Narration of the State and Government of the Kirk of Scotland since the Reformation (Wodrow Society, 1846), p. 72. Presbyterian polemicists, confident that God was on their side, were not impelled to present themselves as also popular on earth, unlike secular-minded politicians; it was enough to be an embattled (or even persecuted) godly minority.
(11) (Thomas Thomson, ed.), Booke of the Universall Kirk: Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, 3 volumes (Bannatyne Club, 1839-45) [hereafter cited as BUK], III, p. 876. This figure excluded Argyll and the Isles, where there were additional vacancies.
(12) The commissioners (with their parishes) were Peter Blackburn (Aberdeen), Thomas Buchanan (Ceres), John Clapperton (Coldstream), Nicol Dalgleish (Pittenweem), John Davidson (Prestonpans), David Ferguson (Dunfermline), Adam Johnstone (Crichton), John Knox (Melrose), James Law (Kirkliston), David Lindsay (South Leith), Andrew Melville (principal of St Mary's College, St Andrews), James Melville (Kilrenny), James Nicolson (Meigle), George Ramsay (Dalkeith), Patrick Sharp (Govan), and Patrick Simson (Stirling). They were ordered to leave Edinburgh on 14 December, but at least Lindsay, Nicolson, and Simson remained to participate in the coup: John Spottiswoode (Mark Napier and Michael Russell, eds.), History of the Church of Scotland, 3 volumes (Spottiswoode Society, 1847-51) [hereafter cited as Spottiswoode, History], III, p. 31 ; Robert Bowes to Sir Robert Cecil, 17 December 1596, in Joseph Bain et al. (eds.), Calendar of State Papers relating to Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots, 1547-1603, 13 volumes (Edinburgh, 1898-1969) [hereafter cited as CSP Scot.], XII, p. 396; British Library, presbyterian apologia in papers of Robert Beale, Add. MS 48117, fo. 174v. For more on the commission see Alan R. MacDonald, "Ecclesiastical Politics in Scotland, 1586-1610" (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1995), pp. 109-17.
(13) Harry G. Aldis, A List of Books Printed in Scotland Before 1700 (2nd edn., Edinburgh, 1970), nos. 279.5-290. On censorship see Alastair J. Mann, The Scottish Book Trade, 1500-1720 (East Linton, 2000), ch. 6.
(14) Louise A. Yeoman, "Godly Revolution in St Andrews" (University of St Andrews MA thesis, 1988).
(15) The Edinburgh ministers were Walter Balcanquhal, Robert Bruce, James Balfour, and William Watson.
(16) Recently transferred from Edinburgh, he was described as Bruce's "man": [...] to [Bowes], c.1 January 1597, CSP Scot., XII, p. 412.
(17) David Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, 8 volumes, eds. Thomas Thomson and David Laing (Wodrow Society, 1843-49 [hereafter cited as Calderwood, History]), V, pp. 515-16; Spottiswoode, History, III, p. 31. The two delegations to the king are discussed below.
(18) Spottiswoode, History, III, p. 34.
(19) In addition to those already mentioned, a presbyterian apologia names Nathan Inglis, minister of Craigie, Robert Pont, minister of St Cuthbert's, William Pape, a minister in Caithness, "etc." as "theise (what was all our partes)": British Library, presbyterian apologia in papers of Robert Beale, Add. MS 48117, fo. 174v. See also Alan R. MacDonald, "David Calderwood: The Not so Hidden Years, 1590-1604," Scottish Historical Review, 74 (1995), pp. 69-74; Julian Goodare, "How Archbishop Spottiswoode Became an Episcopalian," Renaissance and Reformation, 32 (2006-7), pp. 83-103.
(20) Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, ch. 1.
(21) NLS, "Copie of the Minute Buik," Wodrow Quarto, XX, no. 18, fo. 161r.
(22) King James VI (James Craigie, ed.), Basilicon Doron, 2 volumes (Scottish Text Society, 1944-50), I, pp. 75-77.
(23) K. M. Brown, "In Search of the Godly Magistrate in Reformation Scotland," Journal of Eeclesiastical History, 40 (1989), pp. 553-81.
(24) Jenny Wormald, Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent, 1442-1603 (Edinburgh, 1985), ch. 6. The term "gentlemen" is not used in an English sense here.
(25) Goodare, "The Attempted Scottish Coup of 1596," pp. 316-18.
(26) BUK, III, pp. 869-70.
(27) Spottiswoode, History,, III, p. 28.
(28) Pitcairn (ed.), Trials, II, i, p. 31. Another such account mentioned "ane thowsand men" in the Little Church, which may be exaggerated: National Archives of Scotland lhereafter cited as NAS], draft indictment of unnamed person, JC27/39.
(29) [...] to James Hudson, c.20-25 December 1596, T. Birch, Memorials of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth From the Year 1581 Until Her Death, 2 volumes (London, 1754) [hereafler cited as Birch, Memorials], II, pp. 249-51.
(30) Stuart Carroll, "The Revoit of Paris, 1588: Aristocratic Insurgency and the Mobilization of Popular Support," French Historical Studies, 23 (2000), pp. 301-37, at p. 330.
(31) For unreferenced statements below about nobles and lairds, see James Balfour Paul (ed.), The Scots Peerage, 9 volumes (Edinburgh, 1904-14), or the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004).
(32) Melville, Diary, p. 319. The demolition was partial, but included the blowing up of a tower.
(33) Edinburgh University Library [hereafter cited as EUL], Patrick Anderson, "Historie of Scotland," Laing MSS, III.203, 2 volumes, II, ii, fo. 264r. "Jack" = armoured coat.
(34) For the Kennedys, see Keith M. Brown, "A House Divided: Family and Feud in Carrick under John Kennedy, Fifth Earl of Cassillis," Scottish Historical Review, 75 (1996), pp. 168-96. For Kennedy of Blairquhan's connections see Margaret H.B. Sanderson, A Kindly Place? Living in Sixteenth-Century Scotland (East Linton, 2002), p. 144.
(35) Roger Ashton to Hudson, 26 December 1596, Birch, Memorials, II, pp. 235-36. The text speaks of the laird of "Criggy Wickles," probably an eighteenth-century mistranscription of "Craigie Wallace," a familiar form of his name, for example, "Larde of Cragy Wallace," NAS, treasurer's accounts, 1604-5, E21/77, fo. 73v.
(36) EUL, Anderson, "Historie," Laing MSS, III.203, II, ii, fo. 263v.
(37) David Moysie (J. Dennistoun, ed.), Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, 1577-1603 (Maitland Club, 1830) [hereafter cited as Moysie, Memoirs], pp. 130-31; Spottiswoode, History,, III, p. 31.
(38) Bowes to Lord Burghley, 4 January 1597, CSP Scot., XII, p. 416; Pitcairn (ed.), Trials, II, i, p. 3. Hamilton was also known as "'of Inchmauchan."
(39) Henry Paton (ed.), Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, 2 volumes (London, 1904-30) [hereafter cited as HMC, Mar & Kellie], I, pp. 46-47.
(40) Spottiswoode, History, III, p. 31.
(41) CSP Scot., XII, p. 394. He was also known as "MacDougall of Lorne." For his godly and pro-English stance see MacDougall to Bowes, 11 September 1595, ibid., p. 12.
(42) Pitcairn (ed.), Trials, II, i, p. 7.
(43) Maureen M. Meikle, A British Frontier? Lairds and Gentlemen in the Eastern Borders, 1540-1603 (East Linton, 2004), p. 215.
(44) As would some of the actual participants; Lindsay's "friends, whereof he has many and noble," were note& Bowes to Cecil, 13 January 1597, CSP Scot., XII, p. 427.
(45) James Kirk (ed.), Records of the Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale, 1589-1596, 1640-1649 (Stair Society, 1977), p. 60.
(46) [...] to Hudson, c.20-25 December 1596, Birch, Memorials, II, pp. 249-51.
(47) Annie A. Cameron (ed.), The Warrender Papers, 2 volumes (Scottish History Society, 1931-32), II, p. 303.
(48) Pitcairn (ed.), Trials, II, i, pp. 9-10.
(49) The letter in his archives, however, is probably not to him but a contemporary copy of that to Hamilton (though it could conceivably have been a circular). It is endorsed in a contemporary hand "Mr Robert Bruces first letter": NAS, GD124/15/19. It was later printed incautiously as a letter to Mar: HMC, Mar & Kellie, I, p. 46.
(50) Melville, Diary, p. 326.
(51) For the clan under the fifth earl (d. 1573), see Jane E.A. Dawson, The Politics of Religion in the Age of Mary Queen of Scots: The Earl of Argyll and the Struggle for Britain and Ireland (Cambridge, 2002), ch. 2.
(52) Bowes to Cecil, 21 December 1596, CSP Scot., XII, p. 403; cf. Nicholas Maclean-Bristol, Murder Under Trust: The Crimes and Death of Sir Lachlan Mor Maclean of Duart, 1558-1598 (East Linton, 1999), ch. 17.
(53) George Nicholson to [Cecil], 15 August 1598, CSP Scot., XIII, i, p. 260.
(54) Bowes to Burghley, 21 December 1596, CSP Scot., XII, p. 401.
(55) Ayr Burgh Accounts, 1534-1624, ed. George S. Pryde (Scottish History Society, 1937), p. 181.
(56) Moysie, Memoirs, pp. 121-22.
(57) Ibid., p. 133.
(58) Spottiswoode, History, III, p. 33.
(59) In Joseph Bain (ed.), Calendar of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, 2 volumes (Edinburgh, 1894-96) [hereafier cited as CBP], the very full English reports on him ignore his religion, indicating that his Protestant reliability was unquestioned (his English enemies would have pounced on any Catholic leanings).
(60) NLS, "Copie of the Minute Buik," Wodrow Quarto, XX, no. 18, fo. 166v.; Calderwood, History, V, pp. 461-62. They chose these from a wider group including the Duke of Lennox, a crown loyalist whom they presumably did not think worth cultivating: J.H. Burton et al. (eds.), Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, 37 volumes (Edinburgh, 1877) [hereafier cited as RPC], V, p. 334.
(61) Calderwood, History, V, p. 267; CSP Scot., XII, p. 104.
(62) Advices from Scotland, July 1596, CSP Scot., XII, p. 291.
(63) The First Book of Discipline, ed. James K. Cameron (Edinburgh, 1972), p. 212.
(64) T. Dickson et al. (eds.), Accounts of the (Lord High) Treasurer of Scotland, 13 volumes (Edinburgh, 1877), XII, p. 375.
(65) I am grateful to Professor Michael Lynch for helpful guidance on burgesses.
(66) Moysie, Memoirs, pp. 130-31.
(67) Pitcairn (ed.), Trials, II, i, pp. 30-31. "Swasch" = drum.
(68) Bowes to Cecil, 17 December 1596, CSP Scot., XII, p. 396.
(69) Ibid., p. 394.
(70) Amy L. Juhala, "The Household and Court of King James VI of Scotland, 1567-1603" (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2000), pp. 280-83. There was some confusion on the day, and Anderson commented sarcastically on the naivety of John Watt, deacon of the hammermen, "whose bodie hade a greater show then his witt": he "offered upe with a loud voyce to take pairt with the king." EUL, Anderson, "Historie," Laing MSS, III.203, II, ii, fo. 260v. Watt was evidently not opposed to the presbyterians, but he did not understand their intentions and took their professions of loyalty to the king at face value.
(71) NAS, draft indictment of unnamed person, JC27/39.
(72) Calderwood, History, V, pp. 501, 510-11; Scot, Apologetical Narration, pp. 82-83.
(73) James Dalyell, Edward Johnstone, David Johnstone, John Johnstone of Newbie, Thomas Hunter, William Little alias Laird Little, Edward Cathkin, James Cathkin, Andrew Hart, and Michael Flabarne were summoned on 20 December: CSP Scot., XII, p. 402. William Rig, John Cunningham, Thomas Wright, John Smail, William Speir, William Justice, and Alexander Lindsay were imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle on 29 December: J. D. Marwick et al. (eds.), Extracts From the Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, 13 volumes (Scottish Burgh Records Society and Edinburgh, 1869-1967) [hereafter cited as Edin. Recs.], V, p. 175. Edward Johnstone, Michael Flabarne, William Little alias Laird Little, Alexander Vaus, Thomas Hunter, John Oustean, and Robert Jollie were escheated: NAS, privy seal register, 1596-98, PS1/69, fos. 19v., 25r., 33v., 59v., 62v., 63r., 97r. Mr James Muirhead had to give caution: RPC, V, p. 361. The escheat of Robert Johnstone, indweller in Edinburgh, should be noted: Winifred CouRs, The Business ofthe Court of Session in 1600 (Stair Society, 2003), p. 60. Those known to have been among the twenty-four who made military preparations were Edward Cathkin and Andrew Hart (Calderwood, History, V, p. 511), and Thomas Hunter and Michael Flabarne (NAS, draft indictment of unnamed person, JC27/39).
(74) The authorities showed initial interest in uncovering the extent of burgess involvement. In January there was a plan to torture two burgesses, evidently to provide information: Bowes to Burghley, 4 January 1597, CSP Scot., XII, p. 416.
(75) NLS, David Johnstone, "History of Scotland," 2 volumes, Adv. MS 35.4.2., II, fo. 629r.
(76) "Wills of Thomas Bassandyne and Other Printers, &c, in Edinburgh, 1577-1687," Miscellany of the Bannatyne Club, II (1836), pp. 229-31.
(77) Calderwood, History, VII, p. 348.
(78) For radicalism and the book trade see Mann, Scottish Book Trade, p. 151.
(79) Vaughan T. Wells, "The Origins of Covenanting Thought and Resistance, c.1580-1638" (University of Stirling PhD thesis, 1997), pp. 78-79; Calderwood, History, VII, pp. 618-19.
(80) CSP Scot., XII, p. 402.
(81) Pitcairn (ed.), Trials, II, i, p. 31.
(82) Julian Goodare, State and Society in Early Modern Scotland (Oxford, 1999), pp. 157-58; Michael Lynch and Helen M. Dingwall, "Elite Society in Town and Country," in E. Patricia Dennison, David Ditchburn, and Michael Lynch (eds.), Aberdeen Before 1800: A New History (East Linton, 2002), p. 184.
(83) Lee, Maitland, p. 193.
(84) Calderwood, History, V, p. 512; Bowes to Burghley, 21 December 1596, CSP Scot., XII, p. 399; ibid., p. 394. The provost, Alexander Home of North Berwick, rose from a sickbed to pacify the insurgents and played only a minor role, but his nephew, also Alexander Home (or Hume), poet and future minister, participated in the uprising: Alexander Hume, "Ane Afold Admonition to the Ministerie of Scotland, 1609," in David Laing (ed.), Miscellany of the Wodrow Society, I (1844), p. 585.
(85) Bowes to Burghley, 21 December 1596, CSP Scot., XII, pp. 400-1; Calderwood, History, V, p. 521. At some point they arrested one minister, James Balfour, only to let him go again: ibid., pp. 537-38.
(86) Spottiswoode, History, III, p. 33.
(87) Calderwood, History, V, p. 566.
(88) They do not seem to have supported the king's demand to fill the vacant pulpits with other ministers: NAS, Edinburgh presbytery minutes, 1593-1600, CH2/121/2, fo. 97r.
(89) Edin. Rees., V, p. 181.
(90) Lord Eure to Cecil, 5 March 1597, CBP, II, p. 274.
(91) Bowes to Burghley, 21-23 March 1597, CSP Scot., XII, pp. 492-94.
(92) Cf. Tim Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles 11 (Cambridge, 1987), p. 5.
(93) This had happened both in James's minority and "sen-syne"; when he complained that "I was ofttimes calumniated in their populare sermons" he was clearly thinking of 1596: James VI, Basilicon Doron, I, pp. 75-77.
(94) John Row (David Laing, ed.), History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1558-1637 (Wodrow Society, 1842), p. 185. The most famous use ofthe phrase had been by John Knox, writing in his History about the riot in Perth that sparked off the Reformation insurrection in 1559--though at the time he had described the participants as "the brethren": John Knox (William Croft Dickinson, ed.), History of the Reformation in Scotland, 2 volumes (London, 1949), I, p. 162.
(95) [...] to Hudson, c.20-25 December 1596, Birch, Memorials, II, pp. 249-51.
(96) EUL, Anderson, "Historie," Laing MSS, III.203, II, ii, fo. 261r.-v.
(97) Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, pp. 155-56.
(98) Cf. R.B. Wernham, The Return of the Armadas: The Last Years of the Elizabethan War with Spain, 1595-1603 (Oxford, 1994).
(99) Bowes to Burghley, 13 January 1597, CSP Scot., XII, p. 425.
(100) Bowes to Burghley, 26 February 1597, CSP Scot., XII, pp. 474-76. Kerr of Faldonside was saved from prosecution when the English pressed for his services as a Border commissioner: Bowes to Burghley, 25 December 1596, CSP Scot., XII, p. 407; CBP, II, pp. 236, 239.
(101) [...] to Hudson, c.20-25 December 1596, Birch, Memorials, II, pp. 249-51.
(102) Paul E.J. Hammer, The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585-1597 (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 368-78; see also pp. 163-73 for Essex's Scottish contacts. Cf. Nicholas Tyacke, "Puritan Politicians and King James VI and I, 1587-1603," in Thomas Cogswell, Richard Cust, and Peter Lake (eds.), Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart England (Cambridge, 2002).
(103) Bruce and Balcanquhal to Essex, Caldwell, 20 January 1597, Birch, Memorials, II, pp. 267-68.
(104) Calderwood, History, V, p. 387.
(105) Michael Lynch, "Preaching to the Converted? Perspectives on the Scottish Reformation," in MacDonald, Lynch, and Cowan (eds.), The Renaissance in Scotland.
(106) Michael Graham, "Kirk in Danger: Presbyterian Political Divinity in Two Eras," in Bridget Heal and Ole Peter Grell (eds.), The Impact of the European Reformation: Princes, Clergy and People (Aldershot, 2008).
(107) Goodare, State and Society, ch. 1.
(108) James Kirk, "Minister and Magistrate," in his Patterns of Reform (Edinburgh, 1989); Gordon Donaldson, "Church and Community," in his Scottish Church History (Edinburgh, 1985), pp. 234-38. Cf. Goodare, State and Society, pp. 198-205, and Alan R. MacDonald, "Ecclesiastical Representation in Parliament in Post-Reformation Scotland: The Two Kingdoms Theory in Practice," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 50 (1999), pp. 38-61, both of which endorse the impossibility of "two kingdoms" as a reality.
(109) Calderwood, History, V, p. 131. Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3.
(110) Calderwood, History, V, p. 591.
(111) Cf. Julian Goodare, The Government of Scotland, 1560-1625 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 7-8.
(112) Cf. Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 10-11.
(113) Notably James Kirk, "The Development of the Melvillian Movement in Late Sixteenth-Century Scotland" (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1972). While observing that names are less important than things, I have followed the rejection of the term "Melvillian" by MacDonald, Jacobean Kirk, pp. 3, 64.
(114) Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967), pp. 51-55, 92-97; J. T. Cliffe, The Puritan Gentry: The Great Gentry Families of Early Stuart England (London, 1984).
(115) Calderwood, History, V, pp. 215-18.
(116) BUK, III, p. 833.
(117) John Morrill and John Walter, "Order and Disorder in the English Revolution," in John Morrill, The Nature of the English Revolution (London, 1993), p. 387. Cf. H.G. Koenigsberger, "The Organization of Revolutionary Parties in France and the Netherlands during the Sixteenth Century," in his Estates and Revolutions (Ithaca, NY, 1971), p. 225.
(118) Yves-Marie Berce (trans. J. Bergin), Revolt and Revolution in Early Modern Europe (Manchester, 1987), p. 103.
(119) MacDonald, Jacobean Kirk, pp. 107-15; Maurice Lee, Government by Pen: Scotland under James VI and I (Urbana, Illinois, 1980), pp. 48-56.
(120) MacDonald, Jacobean Kirk, pp. 167-70; David Stevenson, "Conventicles in the Kirk, 1619-1637: The Emergence of a Radical Party," Records of the Scottish Church History Society, 18 (1972-74), pp. 99-114; Laura A.M. Stewart, "The Political Repercussions of the Five Articles of Perth: A Reassessment of James VI and I's Religious Policies in Scotland," Sixteenth Century Journal, 38 (2007), pp. 1013-36.
(121) James VI, Basilicon Doron, I, pp. 74-79. This passage covers a wide field; for the inclusion of 1596 within it, see note 94 above. For more about the influence of the coup on Basilicon Doron see Goodare, "The Attempted Scottish Coup of 1596," p. 320.
(122) Peter Lake, "Defining Puritanism Again?" in Francis J. Bremer (ed.), Puritanism." Transatlantic Perspectives on a Seventeenth-Century Anglo-American Faith (Boston, 1993), p. 3.
(123) Mullan, Seottish Puritanism; Margo Todd, The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland (New Haven, Connecticut, 2002), pp. 402-12. It is the intensity rather than the existence of Calvinism that concerns Professor Mullan. The idea that Calvinist beliefs can help to define a puritan, sometimes discussed in England, is no use in Scotland, where everyone was a Calvinist, even the king and the bishops. See also John Coffey, "The Problem of 'Scottish Puritanism', 1590-1638," in Elizabethanne Boran and Crawford Gribben (eds.), Enforcing Reformation in Ireland and Scotland, 1550-1700 (Aldershot, 2006); this paper helpfully outlines some of the issues, though it is primarily about puritan piety, with little on politics before 1618. For further important perspectives on godly discipline, see Gordon DesBrisay, "Twisted by Definition: Women under Godly Discipline in Seventeenth-Century Scottish Towns," in Yvonne Galloway Brown and Rona Ferguson (eds.), Twisted Sisters: Women, Crime and Deviance in Scotland since 1400 (East Linton, 2002).
(124) David G. Mullan, Episcopacy in Scotland. 1560-1638 (Edinburgh, 1986).
(125) Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, p. 43.
(126) Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, p. 24. For Cowper's controversies with the presbyterians see Mullan, Episcopaey, pp. 116-25.
(127) MacDonald, Jacobean Kirk, pp. 102, 108-9, 117, 141-42, 153-57, 170; Alan R. MacDonald, "James VI and I, the Church of Scotland, and British Ecclesiastical Convergence," Historical Journal, 48 (2005), pp. 885-903, at pp. 898-99.
(128) Margo Todd, "Bishops in the Kirk: William Cowper of Galloway and the Puritan Episcopacy of Scotland," Scottish Journal of Theology, 57 (2004), pp. 300-12. This is not the place for a full discussion of this article, but its central argument, that the Jacobean mixed polity was generally accepted, is contradicted at length by MacDonald, Jacobean Kirk, chs. 6-7. Unfortunately, Todd neither cites MacDonald nor discusses the copious evidence he presents.
(129) Spottiswoode, History, III, p. 258. Todd cites this passage of Spottiswoode (at her p. 304) but omits to make this point.
(130) To Cowper can be added Andrew Boyd, perhaps the only other bishop for whom the presbyterians had even grudging respect: Jamie Reid-Baxter, "Mr Andrew Boyd (1567-1636): A NeoStoic Bishop of Argyll and his Writings," in Goodare and MacDonald (eds.), Sixteenth-Century Scotland, pp. 396-97.
(131) Mullan, Episcopacy, p. 119.
(132) Margo Todd, "The Problem of Scotland's Puritans," in John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 177-78.
(133) Goodare, "Archbishop Spottiswoode."
(134) Hume, "Afold Admonition," p. 585.
(135) Bowes to Burghley, 25 December 1596, CSP Scot., XII, p. 408.
(136) Concepci6n Saenz-Cambra, "Scotland and Philip II, 1580-1598: Politics, Religion, Diplomacy and Lobbying" (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2003), pp. 196-99.
(137) Julian Goodare, "Scottish Politics in the Reign of James VI," in Julian Goodare and Michael Lynch (eds.), The Reign of James VI (East Linton, 2000), pp. 41-45.
(138) MacDonald, Jacobean Kirk, pp. 126-43.
(139) David Underdown, Fire from Heaven: Loe in an English Town in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1992).
(140) Julian Goodare, "The Scottish Witchcraft Panic of 1597," in Julian Goodare (ed.), The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context (Manchester, 2002).
Julian Goodare is a Reader in History at the University of Edinburgh. He is interested in government, politics, finance and witchcraft in early modern Scotland. His recent books include The Government of Scotland. 1560-1625 (Oxford, 2004) and Sixteenth-Century Scotland: Essays in Honour of Michael Lynch (Leiden, 2008) (as co-editor with-Alasdair A. MacDonald).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Canadian Journal of History|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2010|
|Previous Article:||The politics of diffuse authority in an early modern small town.|
|Next Article:||Cards on the table: the middling sort as suppliers and consumers of English leisure culture in the eighteenth century.|