The Covenanters, Part 3: The King James Bible, a Tyrant, and the Scottish National Covenant
The corridors of history are filled with surprising twists and abrupt turns. Some philosophers, noting how the cogs of history seem to turn abruptly upon the smallest of happenings, have sometimes discussed what popular culture refers to as “the butterfly effect.” Originally, the theory was birthed by a meteorologist as part of chaos theory, but more commonly today people use this term to refer to the theory that one slight action in the present may act as a cause resulting in a multitude of unforeseen effects; for example, in popular media, the idea is often presented that the death of a butterfly in the present may result in a hurricane in the future.
Cause and effect, ebb and flow, push and pull; we see these functions imprinted all over the cogs of fate throughout history. One event leads to another, that event leading to countless more. Everything, then, is connected. (I have often joked with my students that if you want a good game to waste some time on, just go to Wikipedia, click an article at random, and start clicking the hyperlinks until you eventually get to an article on Adolph Hitler—it never takes very long.) If we wanted to, we could effectively trace every moment in history back to a foundational starting point: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).
This interconnectedness of history means that it ought not to be surprising to learn then that the Scottish National Covenant of 1638 exists because of the King James translation of the Bible.
Permit me to take you, dear reader, down a few corridors of history.
King James VI of Scotland
In modern retellings of his life, I have found that James is more commonly remembered as King James I of England, rather than King James VI of Scotland. Nonetheless, he was in fact King of both realms, and also ruler of Ireland, as well. He ruled all three nations from March 24, 1603, until his eventual death in 1625. Despite his two decades of rule, the nations were never able to come to a true unification, continuing to operate as sovereign nations with their own parliaments.
King James was born the son of Mary, Queen of the Scots (the same antagonist mentioned throughout the life and times of the great Scottish Reformer, John Knox), and a great grand-son of King Henry VII, King of England and Lord of Ireland. He was also the great-great nephew of King Henry VIII, making him the first cousin, twice removed, of Queen Elizabeth I. Thus, from his birth, he existed as heir apparent to three different thrones. He ascended his first throne—that of Scotland—at only a little over a year old, when his mother was forced to abdicate and abandon the throne.
It was not unheard of for rulers after the Reformation to be Protestant, but it also was not unusual to see them still cling to their Roman Catholic upbringing. Several factors resulted in James being raised as a Protestant and Presbyterian, despite having received Roman Catholic baptism as an infant. His own ancestors had often stood between one side or the other, with each subsequent generation wavering to the opposite side. While his own mother had been staunchly Roman Catholic, several decades earlier his great-great uncle, King Henry VIII, had split from the Roman Catholic Church and had founded the Church of England.
By the time James took the English throne in 1603, times were turbulent. On November 5th, 1605, on the eve of the first English Parliament to be led by James, the Gunpowder Plot, spearheaded by the Catholic Guy Fawkes, was discovered. Fawkes had planned to use 36 barrels of gunpowder, beneath Parliament, to blow up not just the meeting place, but King James, his family, and everyone else present at the time.
If James was a Protestant before this simply because it was how he was raised by his benefactors, he was now a Protestant in principle, as well. In his view, the Catholics had attempted to assassinate him. From this point on, he would intentionally make it clear to one and all that neither Pope nor Vatican had any authority over him or his realms. In fact, he even began making Catholics in his realm sign the Oath of Allegiance of 1606, which formally recognized that the Pope had no power over James, either to lead him or depose him. Those who signed were considered loyal subjects, while those who refused were labeled as traitors.
But there was another problem that James had to contend with for the Protestants. The English translation of the Bible by William Tyndall in 1526 had led to several other English translations. Most notably, the Great Bible was the first authorized English translation in 1539, and it was rather disliked by most. More alarmingly, the English Church attempted to make it the only available translation, while several others attempted to make it impossible for nearly ninety percent of the English population to read it by limiting its availability to only certain social classes. The Geneva Bible of 1560 proved far more valuable and well-liked, but with its overt Calvinistic undertones in its notes, though most popular among the people, was rejected by the Church of England under King Henry VIII. Eventually, under Queen Elizabeth I, the Geneva translation was taken and developed into what would be known as the Bishops’ Bible. It was very similar to the Geneva translation, minus the Calvinistic and reformed footnotes.
The Geneva Bible translation proved to still be the more popular English translation (and would be for many more decades). But the Bishop’s Bible continued to hang in the background of the Puritans and Presbyterians, and they wanted to get as far from the Church of England as they could, believing it to be not so far removed from the tyranny of the Catholic church. So, in 1604, King James authorized the scholarly undertaking of another English translation of the Bible. By 1611, it would be completed and would become the authorized and standardized version of the Bible for English speaking churches to use.
However, King James had an underlying motive for desiring a new authoritative and standardized translation: The Geneva Bible, in various footnotes, referred to the tyranny of monarchies and kings. This was unacceptable in James’ view. Such footnotes had to be erased, and anything that would make monarchs questionable needed to go.
Charles I of England: A Tragic Tyrant
Charles I of England was not initially supposed to be king. He was the second son of King James I. His elder brother, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, was the true heir apparent, right up until his death in 1612.
Charles I took to the throne in 1625, and immediately cast himself in a negative light before the Protestant population by taking Henrietta Maria of France—a Roman Catholic—as his wife. Further tarnishing his reputation, he held to the views espoused by the High Anglican Church, including ceremonial worship practices, and rejection of Calvinism in favor of Arminianism, which placed him dangerously close to Roman Catholicism for some.
Worsening matters, Charles I took advantage of the fact that the King James translation had removed all footnotes mentioning the tyranny of rulers and instead insisted upon the doctrine of the divine right of kings. He held that he had a God-given right to rule the people as he pleased and was not liable to be held under anyone’s authority or scrutiny. He believed that his duty was to govern according to his conscience, and no laws would bind him otherwise.
When he then began to try and enforce the High Church practices of Anglicanism upon the Kirk of Scotland, it was clear something would need to give. He had already made enemies of Parliament by insisting upon his divine rights to rule as he pleased. He had also managed to upset a good portion of the populace with the levying of taxes without the needed consent of Parliament. And now he was making enemies of the Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans.
War was inevitable. Charles I had acted as a tyrant, as far as the Presbyterians and Puritans were concerned. His actions would led directly to the Bishops’ Wars, which was fought between Charles I and the Covenanters, from 1639-40. This would become only the first of many more conflicts to follow during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, including: The First and Second English Civil Wars, the Irish Confederate Wars, and the Anglo-Scottish War.
Charles I effectively managed to secure his own downfall through imposing the religious practices of the Anglican Church upon his Scottish subjects. While the Scottish Kirk believed strongly in Presbyterianism, and thus the election of ministers through a Presbytery and congregation, Charles I believed in an Episcopalian model, wherein the King elected bishops to serve over the congregation to be best.
Not only did Charles I attempt to enforce Arminian doctrines upon the Kirk, and an Episcopalian polity, he then replaced John Knox’s Book of Discipline with the Book of Canons in 1636. Not only was this an apparent attack on the tradition of the Scottish Kirk, but the Book of Canons also threatened excommunication of any person in the Kirk who denied the sovereign right of the King to rule over not just civilian affairs, but church affairs, too.
Rioting soon followed. Some argue that the War really started in St. Giles Cathedral (the same Kirk where Knox had ministered decades earlier), when Jenny Geddes threw a wooden stool during the service. This was in 1637, when Charles I implemented the required following and reading of The Book of Common Prayer within the Scottish Kirk.
Eventually, on January 30, 1649, King Charles I was defeated and executed. He was publicly beheaded in London and was charged with both high treason and for attempting to take away the rights and liberties of the people by ruling as an absolute monarch—a charge that was as unmistakable as it was undeniable.
But in between wars and rumors of wars, public trials and executions, came the birth of the National Covenant.
The Signing of the National Covenant
King Charles I was attempting his own reform of the Scottish Kirk, and the Scots were not taking kindly to his attempts. They saw his mission as being little more than Catholic subterfuge and refused to permit this tyrannical ruler from dictating the way that their church, or nation, would serve the Lord.
Thus, the Covenanters were officially born, bound by that very same slogan made famous by John Knox: “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” Written and drafted predominantly by Archibald Johnson (a lawyer) and Alexander Henderson (a minister), the document declared that the Scots allegiance was to Christ as their King. On February 28th, 1638, the first signers of the National Covenant put their names to the document at the Greyfriars Kirk in Edinburgh, and more signers would soon follow as the Covenant was passed around.
The signing of the National Covenant was counted by King Charles I as treason, but the Scots considered him to have already committed treason previously, with his attempts to dictate their worship of the Lord. In fact, they saw Charles I as introducing into the Kirk popish novelties and devilish practices that needed to once more be purged from the church if it were to properly worship God in pure Spirit and truth.
It is in the closing paragraph of the National Covenant that the Scots make their opposition to King and his religious demands upon the Kirk most obvious, quoted here in its fullness:
We noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under subscribing, considering divers times before, and especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed religion, of the King’s honour, and of the public peace of the kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally contained and particularly mentioned in our late supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen, till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications, complaints, and protestations have no warrant of the Word of God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the re-establishing of the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if every one of them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other particular heads of papistry abjured therein; and therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God to continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands, all the days of our life.[1]
Throughout, the Scots make two things abundantly clear: The proper worship of the triune God must be dictated only by His Word, and anything that opposes this true and proper worship is rightly opposed and resisted. Having thus bound themselves by oath and through signature, the Scots covenanted before God to serve Him, and Him alone.
These Covenanters, representing an entire nation at a very particular point in time, have a great deal to teach us today. Next time, we will turn our attention to the two men who framed the National Covenant: Archibald Johnson and Alexander Henderson.
[1] National Covenant. Italics my own. See: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/important-documents/the-national-covenant-1638/.
