The Act Rescissory

Middleton’s Parliament

Hetherington writes that “the new parliament was opened by the Earl of Middleton, as representative of his majesty, on the 1st of January 1661”; Cunningham gives the same day, and M’Crie writes that it “sat down in January, 1661”. M’Crie calls it “Middleton’s parliament, from the name of the commissioner”.¹

Wodrow, the historian of these years, explains how its business was done: “All the acts of a public nature were formed by ‘the lords of articles’ [a committee of the Estates], and presented from them to the parliament, where many of them passed without any great reasoning; sometimes five or six acts of very great consequence would be voted in an afternoon’s sederunt [sitting].”²

M’Crie writes that “the first step for the subversion of the civil and religious liberties of Scotland … was the passing, early in the year 1661, of the act of supremacy”, and he adds that the oath of allegiance was “afterwards added”. Hetherington quotes the oath that members took at the opening of Parliament, in which the member acknowledged the King “only supreme governor of this kingdom over all persons and in all causes.”³

The Acts Rescissory

Kerr, who prints the Acts under the heading “The Acts Rescissory”, begins with the Act of January 1661 “concerning the League and Covenant”. It declares “that there is no Obligation upon this Kingdom by Covenant, Treaties or otherwise, to endeavour by Arms a Reformation of Religion in the Kingdom of England”, and that “the League and Covenant, and all Treaties following thereupon, and Acts or Deeds that do, or may relate thereto, are not obligatory, nor do infer any obligation upon this Kingdom, or the Subjects thereof, to meddle or interpose by Arms, or any seditious way, in any thing concerning the Religion and Government of the Churches of England and Ireland”. It also forbids any subject “to renew and swear the same, without His Majesty’s warrant … as they will be answerable at their highest peril” [spelling modernised].⁴

The register of Parliament dates the main Act at Edinburgh on 28 March 1661, as Act 126 of the session: “Act Rescinding & annulling the pretendit [pretended] Parliaments in the yeers [years] 1640. 1641 &c.” Its preamble claims that “all the miseries, confusions, and disorders which this Kingdom hath groaned under, these twenty-three years, have issued from … these neglects, contempts, and invasions, which … were upon the specious (but false) pretexts of Reformation (the common cloak of all rebellions) offered unto the Sacred Person and Royal Authority of the King’s Majesty” [spelling modernised].⁵

Its operative words run: “Therefore the King’s Majesty and Estates of Parliament do hereby rescind and annul the pretended Parliaments, kept in the years one thousand six hundred and forty, one thousand six hundred and forty-one, one thousand six hundred and forty-four, one thousand six hundred and forty-five, one thousand six hundred and forty-six, one thousand six hundred and forty-seven, and one thousand six hundred and forty-eight, and all Acts and Deeds past and done in them, and declares the same to be henceforth void and null” [spelling modernised].⁶

Wodrow comments: “It had not been unusual to rescind particular acts of former parliaments; but I find few instances before this, of voiding and cassing [annulling] parliaments by the lump and wholesale.” With those Parliaments fell their Acts for the Presbyterian Church. Hetherington writes that the Act, “at one broad sweep annulling all the parliaments held since 1633, with all their proceedings”, abolished “all the laws made in favour of the Presbyterian Church”.⁷

The ministers of Edinburgh tried to stop it. Wodrow records that when its nature became known, the presbytery of Edinburgh framed a supplication “craving that a new act might be made, for establishing of religion and church government, since they were informed the parliament were about to rescind the civil sanction and statutes in force, for the exercise thereof.” It was given to Messrs John Smith, Robert Lawrie and Peter Blair to present, but the commissioner prevailed on them not to give it in that day, “and presently the parliament met, and in haste enough passed the rescissory act, from which a good many members dissented.” Cunningham, by contrast, writes that the Parliament “passed with wonderful unanimity the famous Rescissory Act”.⁸

At the same sitting Parliament passed an “Act concerning Religion and Church Government”. In it the King promised to settle the government of the Church “in such a frame as shall be most agreeable to the word of God, most suitable to monarchical government, and most complying with the public peace and quiet of the kingdom”, and “in the mean time” allowed “the present administration by sessions, presbyteries and synods, (they keeping within bounds, and behaving themselves as said is)”. Wodrow’s verdict: “Thus in as dark and insensible a manner as might be, presbytery is abolished, prelacy [government by bishops] brought in, and the government of the church is left ambulatory”.⁹

The name is used in more than one way. Kerr heads all the Acts he prints “The Acts Rescissory”, including one of 1662. MacPherson applies the name to the Act of January 1661 against leagues and bonds, and calls the Act annulling the Parliaments “another act of a similar kind”. M’Crie, Wodrow, Hetherington and Cunningham give the name to the Act annulling the Parliaments.¹⁰

Bishops restored, 1662

MacPherson writes that in September 1661 the Chancellor read to the Privy Council a letter from the King, who “resolved to restore the government of the church as it existed before 1638, under his grandfather and father.” Four ministers were then made bishops in London. MacPherson names them and their sees: “Sharp and Fairfoul to the archiepiscopal sees of St. Andrews and Glasgow, and Hamilton and Leighton to the bishoprics of Galloway and Dunblane”. M’Crie writes that the ceremony “was performed in Westminster Abbey”.¹¹

Before the bishops came home, Cunningham writes, the Privy Council, “in compliance with a letter from the king, published an order forbidding synods, presbyteries, or kirk-sessions to meet till they should be authorized by the archbishops and bishops of the Church.” MacPherson dates the letter “the beginning of 1662”.¹²

The second session of the Parliament opened on 8 May 1662, and Cunningham and Hetherington write that its first Act was for “the restitution and re-establishment of the ancient government of the Church by archbishops and bishops.” The register dates that Act at Edinburgh on 27 May 1662; M’Crie dates it 8 May. It declared that “the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong unto his Majesty as an inherent right of the Crown, by virtue of his Royal Prerogative and supremacy in causes ecclesiastical” [spelling modernised], and restored the bishops “to the exercise of their episcopal function, presidency in the Church, power of ordination, inflicting of censures and all other acts of Church discipline, which they are to perform with advice and assistance of such of the Clergy as they shall find to be of known loyalty and prudence” [spelling modernised].¹³

Cunningham writes that by this Act “all the laws in favour of the Presbyterian polity, especially the Charter Act of 1592, were rescinded”.¹⁴

The same session passed an “Act for preservation of His Majesty’s Person, Authority and Government”. It declared “that these Oaths, whereof the one was commonly called The National Covenant, (as it was sworn and explained in the year one thousand, six hundred and thirty-eight, and thereafter) and the other entitled, A Solemn League and Covenant, were, and are in themselves unlawful Oaths”, and that the Assembly at Glasgow in 1638 “was in itself … an unlawful and seditious Meeting” [spelling modernised]. M’Crie records that on 29 May 1662, kept as the anniversary of the King’s restoration, “the covenants were torn in pieces at the Cross of Edinburgh by the hands of the common hangman.”¹⁵

A further Act concerned “such benefices [church livings] and stipends as have been possessed without presentations from the lawful patrons”. Cunningham explains that the Parliament of 1649 had abolished patronage, and that “all the ministers ordained from 1649 to 1660 had been chosen under this system. It was now declared that all such ministers had no right to their livings”, unless they took a presentation from the patron and institution from the bishop.¹⁶

The Act of Glasgow and the ejection of the ministers

In the autumn the Earl of Middleton and the Privy Council went to the west. Hetherington writes that the Archbishop of Glasgow, Fairfoul, complained that none of the younger ministers of his diocese, “entered since 1649”, had owned his authority. M’Crie writes that Fairfoul “maintained that there would not be ten in all his diocese who would refuse to comply.”¹⁷

The Council’s act, which Wodrow prints, is dated “At Glasgow, October 1st, 1662”. It recites the Act of Parliament, under which “all ministers who have entered upon the care of any parish in burgh or landward, in or since the year of God 1649, (at and before which time the patrons were most injuriously dispossessed of their patronages) have no right unto, or shall uplift the rents of their respective benefices”, “unless they should obtain presentation from the lawful patron, and have collation from the bishop of the diocese where they live, before the twentieth day of September last”. The Council then prohibited all such ministers “to exerce [exercise] any part of the function of the ministry” at their churches, and commanded them “to remove themselves and their families out of their parishes, betwixt and the first day of November next to come, and not to reside within the bounds of their respective presbyteries”. Hetherington, Cunningham and MacPherson give the same day for the act and the same 1 November. M’Crie agrees on 1 November, and dates the Council’s agreement to issue the proclamation “the 4th of October”.¹⁸

Hetherington writes: “On the last Sabbath of October they preached and bade farewell to their deeply-attached congregations”, and quotes Kirkton’s History: “I believe there was never such a sad Sabbath in Scotland, as when the poor persecuted ministers took leave of their people.” Wodrow likewise: “Scotland was never witness to such a sabbath as the last those ministers preached”.¹⁹

Wodrow heads his account “Of the ejection of near four hundred ministers”, and writes that “by the act of Glasgow, more than a third part of the ministers of the church of Scotland were cast out of their charges, merely for conscience’ sake”. M’Crie writes that “nearly four hundred ministers chose to be ejected from their charges rather than comply”, and Hetherington that the measure “caused the ejection of nearly four hundred ministers in the course of a few months”. MacPherson puts the number “at from three hundred and fifty to four hundred”. Cunningham gives a smaller figure: on the day fixed by the Council, “nearly three hundred ministers sorrowfully turned their backs upon the pleasant manses”.²⁰

Wodrow gives a roll of the ejected ministers by synod and presbytery, compiled, he writes, “from several papers come to my hand”; it begins with the ministers of Edinburgh, Robert Douglas, Robert Trail, John Smith, Thomas Garvan, James Hamilton, George Hutchison and John Stirling, and David Dickson, professor of theology. Wodrow marks these Edinburgh ministers “P.”, for those “outed by particular sentences of parliament or council”, not “G.”, for those “outed by the act of council at Glasgow”. Hetherington counts the roll at 412 names, “but several of them had been deposed before the Act of Glasgow, so that the number cast out by that Act fell somewhat short of 400.” MacPherson adds that a later order of 23 December allowed ministers to apply for presentation and collation up to 1 February.²¹

When the General Assembly met again in 1690, its Act appointing a national fast confessed among the nation’s sins that “the government of the Church was altered, and Prelacy … introduced, without the Church’s consent, and contrary to the standing acts of our National Assemblies … Many faithful ministers were thereupon cast out, and many insufficient and scandalous men thrust in on their charges, and many families ruined, because they would not own them as their pastors.”²²