Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMoore, W. F.en
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-15T14:37:56Z
dc.date.available2019-02-15T14:37:56Z
dc.date.issued1940en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1842/35397
dc.description.abstracten
dc.description.abstractAt the close of the Parliament of 1663 the stage was set for the struggle which ended in a compromise settlement after the revolution of 1688, when both monarchy and church had given up their absolutist claims. The effective resistance to the settlement was carried on by the Protesters, and Sharp was not wrong in his opinion that very few Resolutioners would refuse to accept episcopacy. He is reported to have told the King that not twenty of them would oppose the new establishment. There was some exaggeration in the statement, for, according to an authority with strong covenanting sympathies the actual number was forty; but that is not a very large proportion of some six or seven hundred ministers. They included, however, the majority of the leading and most respected men of the party. They were the older men who had taken an active part in all proceedings since 1637, and there seems to have been a widespread reaction against the Covenant in the ranks of the younger ministers: With the Protesters, on the other hand, it was the young men who were the most zealous, and and many of the older ministers were submissive.4 That there was a strong reaction among the general population also is clear, and even some of those who had been zealous for the Covenant had become doubtful of its wisdom and unable to justify it entirely. Alexander Brodie of Brodie and Alexander Jaffrey, both of whom had been prominent covenanters, discussed the subject in June 1662. They agreed that there were some things in the Covenant unlawful, and they were bound to repent of this, that, as God's name was interposed, it was not to be broken lightly, but were it to swear again it would stumble many, seeing what had ensued. Brodie's position with regard to episcopacy was that he disliked the change but he would be obedient to the laws. Jaffrey had become a quaker.en
dc.description.abstractThe King had expressed his intention of employing moderate men to carry out the church settlement. Sharp also declared himself to be in favour of moderation, and at the first appearance of opposition he had told Lauderdale that he was prepared to wait with patience to give men time "to make the retreat with credit." Some men who had at first resisted did conform; but it was of no avail to give time to men who were ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of conscience. Since about two thirds of the Population acquiesced in episcopacy, it had not been anticipated that it would be so difficult to suppress the resistance of the rest. The act of Glasgow was much blamed for the troubles by the supporters of the government, and their opponents agreed with them. The historian, Kirkton, wrote in justification of the ministers who left their congregations without waiting to be ejected, "Had they stayed till they had been turned out forcibly one by one, and their places planted immediately, as Bishop Sharp designed, the change had never been so sensible, nor the opposition to Bishops so considerable; whereas Providence made the course ministers took the first act of clear opposition to that course, by the alienation it made upon the people, and the break it made upon the country, the bishops and all their might was never able to heal."en
dc.description.abstractSharp's policy was the same as that of Clarendon and the the English bishops in England, the.strict enforcement of the law, but this policy he was never able to carry out. His letters, and those of Alexander Burnet, Archbishop of Glasgow, to Lauderdale and Sheldon are full of complaints that they did not receive the help they should have had from the other members of the Privy Council. There was much discontent among the Scottish nobility, who often showed their dissatisfaction with the government and their dislike of the bishops by neglecting to take effective action to restrain disorders. Sharp seems to have been proved right by the fact that the policy of leniency tried by Lauderdale after the Pentland rising was a failure and Lauderdale founds it necessary to adopt repressive measures once again. Robert Leighton, Bishop of Dunblane, whose great desire was for reconciliation, found the explanation of the fact government's failure in the fact that there was too great rigour on the one hand and top many relaxations and indulgences on the other. He blamed also the cessation of kirk sessions and presbyteries from January to October 1662, which meant a relaxation of discipline for that period, and also the "fatal act of Glasgow".en
dc.description.abstractFor Sharp the only possible policy was the enforcement of the law, for he could not conciliate the presbyterians, who regarded him as a traitor to the Kirk of Scotland, to the Covenant and his own convictions. It seems most probable, however, that so long as episcopacy was maintained nothing would have prevented the extremists from resisting the law. The real reason of the government's failure was the self sacrificing zeal and fanaticism of the Protesters of the west.en
dc.description.abstractThere can be little doubt that Sharp was betraying his colleagues in the early months of 1661. It seems improbable, however, that he Was betraying his own convictions. Tre fact that the covenanting movement produced in him its traitor may be regarded as a.just retribution for the intolerance which compelled many men to live lives of dissimulation. Like many others,Sharp had in his youth been accept the Covenant and presbytery or give up his means of livelihood and his career. That he subscribed the National Covenant after Charles I had ratified it was not inconsistent with the principles in which he had been educated by the Aberdeen doctors, who did not consider presbytery unlawful, but, if he was to satisfy his ambition to succeed, or even be certain of keeping his position, he must conceal any episcopalian tendencies he may have retained and obey unquestioningly the decisions of the General Assembly. When divisions arose in'the church he naturally joined the moderate party, and he found no difficulty in maintaining loyalty to them during the commonwealth. As agent of both Monck and the Resolutioners he had to try and reconcile two loyalties. It soon seems to have become clear to him that the aim of the Resolutioners to bring in the King on Covenant terms was impracticable and that, if they continued to insist upon it, they were likely to destroy all possibility of retaining the presbyterian settlement in Scotland. He was not completely frank with them, for he did not let them know that Lauderdale and he were encouraging the English presbyterians to accept an accommodation with episcopacy. If he had done so he would have had no further influence with them, and he would not have been able to perform the services desired of him by Monck, Lauderdale and the King.en
dc.description.abstractThere is, however, no reason to believe that he was not then co-operating loyally with Lauderdale to bring about the presbyterian settlement which Lauderdale desired. The settlement contemplated would doubtless have involved a managed General Assembly subservient to the state, but probably it would have been accepted by the Resolutioners in their anxiety to prove that presbytery was consistent with monarchy. In any case they did not really want a free Assembly, for they wished to exclude the Protesters. It would have been a more satisfactory settlement. There would have been trouble with the Protesters, the majority of whom would have been deposed, but the opposition would have appeared less reasonable and would have been less widespread and, therefore, more easily dealt with. The episcopalians would still have been persecuted, but, as they were less fanatical than the Protesters they would have suffered less, and they might have been provided with livings in England.en
dc.description.abstractIn spite of rumours. to the contrary it seems probable enough that Sharp was still working loyally with Lauderdale until the end of the year, for everything he wrote at this time and everything that is reported of his words and actions is quite consistent with this theory. He seems to have been able to persuade the moderate presbyterians to make no mention of the Solemn League and Covenant and to have been trying to bring them to the point of repudiating the General Assembly's attitude to the Engagement of 1648, on the ground that they were carried away by the extremists. He was apparently not completely successful in this, and Middleton seems to have convinced him in January 1661 that the King was not able to trust the presbyterians to the extent of granting them a General Assembly and that the establishment of episcopacy was inevitable. Sharp then entered wholeheartedly into Middleton's plans, at the same time trying to retain the confidence of Lauderdale and win him over to the episcopal solution.en
dc.description.abstractHis co-operation with Middleton involved him in treachery to his colleagues, who, as Robert Baillie wrote, trusted him as their own souls. He realised fully what it meant to them, as is shown by his assertion to Patrick Drummond that he would not be accessory to bringing in bishops, or even constant moderators, because of the suffering it would cause to many. Nevertheless he decided to betray his friends in order to realise his ambition. In so doing he entered upon a life of unremitting toil,in which he experienced much disappointment and many humiliations, and which ended in his cruel murder by some of the most extreme and desperate fanatics whom he was oppressing. He would have been happier if, in accordance with the intention he expressed, probably not sincerely, to Patrick Drummond, he had retired from public life in the spring of 1661. and devoted himself to the duties of his professorship at St. Andrews, where he might have lived a useful and honoured life.en
dc.description.abstractFrom the point of view of the episcopalian church Sharp's appointment as Archbishop was probably a mistake. It was no doubt due to the great ability and experience which made his services invaluable to the unscrupulous men who governed the country, but owing to the prejudice created by his treachery it tended to defeat the aims of those who wished to win over the more moderate Presbyterians by methods of conciliation.en
dc.publisherThe University of Edinburghen
dc.relation.ispartofAnnexe Thesis Digitisation Project 2019 Block 22en
dc.relation.isreferencedbyen
dc.titleJames Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews, and the restoration of episcopacy in Scotlanden
dc.typeThesis or Dissertationen
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen
dc.type.qualificationnamePhD Doctor of Philosophyen


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record