Sanquhar Declaration (1680)

In the year 1680, the Covenanter movement reached a point of no return. Two documents, the Queensferry Paper and the Sanquhar Declaration, marked a shift from religious protest to open political revolution. Together, they laid out the radical argument that a king who violates God’s law and the people’s liberties is no longer a legitimate ruler.

1. The Queensferry Paper (June 1680)

The Queensferry Paper was an unfinished draft of a new covenant found in the pocket of Henry Hall of Haughhead after he was captured during a scuffle with government troops in South Queensferry. Though it was technically a private document, the government published it to show how "treasonous" the Covenanters had become.

• The Content: The paper was a bold declaration of independence from the Stuart monarchy. It argued that because the King had broken the Covenants, he had forfeited his power.

• A New Form of Government: Most radically, it suggested that if the monarchy failed to uphold the true religion, the people had the right to establish a government based on the model of the Bible, potentially even a republic.

• Separation from "Indulged" Ministers: It also officially broke ties with any Presbyterian ministers who had accepted "indulgences" (licenses to preach granted by the King), calling them traitors to the cause of Christ.

2. The Sanquhar Declaration (June 22, 1680)

While the Queensferry Paper was an accidental discovery, the Sanquhar Declaration was a public, intentional act of defiance. Led by Richard Cameron, twenty armed Covenanters rode into the town of Sanquhar, drew their swords, and nailed their testimony to the market cross.

• The Formal Disowning: The declaration did not just complain about the King; it formally "disowned Charles Stuart" as their king. They argued that by his "perjury and breach of covenant," he had become a tyrant.

• A Declaration of War: By nailing this paper to the cross, the "Society People" (Cameronians) effectively declared war on the British state. They stated that they would no longer obey the King’s laws, pay his taxes, or recognize his courts.

• The Justification: They argued that the relationship between a king and a people is a mutual contract. If the king fails his part of the contract (to rule justly under God), the people are released from their part (to obey).

Key Differences

The key difference between the Queensferry Paper and the Sanquhar Declaration lies in their origin and their intended function within the resistance movement. The Queensferry Paper was essentially an internal, unfinished draft that outlined a radical new vision for a self-governing Christian society. It was never intended for immediate publication but was discovered on the person of Henry Hall after a skirmish. Because it hinted at the potential for a republican form of government and a total restructuring of the state, it served as a theoretical "blueprint" for a nation that had completely moved beyond the concept of monarchy. It was more comprehensive in its social and religious scope, detailing how the "Society People" intended to govern themselves while separated from a corrupt state.

The Sanquhar Declaration, however, was a formal and public "act of state" by a people who considered themselves a legitimate remnant of the true Scottish nation. Unlike the accidental discovery of the Queensferry Paper, the Sanquhar Declaration was a deliberate, militant proclamation of war. Its primary function was to formally "dethrone" Charles II by publicly disowning his authority at a town’s market cross. While the Queensferry Paper was an intellectual and constitutional framework for a future without a king, the Sanquhar Declaration was a decisive political break that transformed the Covenanters from religious dissenters into active revolutionaries. The government used the existence of both to justify the "Killing Times," treating the former as proof of a secret conspiracy and the latter as an open act of treason.

Historical Significance

These two documents were the catalyst for the "Killing Times." Before 1680, the government persecuted Covenanters for how they worshipped; after 1680, they persecuted them for treason.

The government used these papers to justify the "Killing Clause": any person found in the fields could be asked if they "disowned the Sanquhar Declaration." If they refused to answer or supported the document, they could be shot on the spot. Paradoxically, the ideas in these papers, that a tyrant could be deposed, became the legal foundation for the Glorious Revolution of 1688 just eight years later.

Following the radical declarations at Queensferry and Sanquhar, the Scottish government found itself in a dilemma: how could they distinguish a peaceful Presbyterian from a "revolutionary" Cameronian? Their solution was the Abjuration Oath of 1684.  This oath was designed as a "litmus test" of political and religious loyalty, and it became the primary legal tool used to justify the executions during the height of the Killing Times.

1. The Purpose of the Oath

The government demanded that every person in Scotland over the age of sixteen swear that they "abhorred, detached, and renounced" the principles laid out in the Sanquhar Declaration.

The goal was to force people to choose between:

• The King: Acknowledging Charles II (and later James VII) as the absolute head of both State and Church.

• The Covenant: Maintaining that the King was a tyrant and that the Covenanters’ declarations of war were justified.

2. The "Short and Easy" Trial

The Abjuration Oath changed the nature of the persecution. It removed the need for a formal courtroom trial.

• Field Powers: Soldiers, led by men like John Graham of Claverhouse, were given the authority to stop anyone on the road or in the fields.

• The Question: The soldier would ask: "Will you abjure the traitorous Declaration?"

• The Consequence: If the person took the oath, they were let go (often with a "pass" or certificate of loyalty). If they refused to answer or explicitly supported the Covenanter declarations, the soldiers were legally permitted to shoot them on the spot.

3. Why did the Covenanters refuse it?

To a modern observer, saying "I renounce a declaration of war" might seem like a simple way to save one's life. However, for the Covenanters, it was a matter of sacred integrity:

• Perjury: They believed the King had already committed perjury by breaking the National Covenant. To swear an oath to a "perjured tyrant" was to share in his sin.

• The Kingship of Christ: Taking the oath was seen as an admission that the King, not Jesus, was the supreme authority over the conscience.

• Truth over Life: They believed that even if they did not personally plan to take up arms, the principles of the Sanquhar Declaration—that the Law is above the King—were biblically true. To renounce them was to renounce the Truth.

4. The Impact: Creating Martyrs

The Abjuration Oath is what led to the deaths of the Wigtown Martyrs and John Brown, whom we discussed earlier. In many cases, these individuals were not "rebels" in the sense of carrying swords; they were simply civilians who refused to say the words of the oath because their consciences would not allow it.

The brutality of the oath-taking process eventually revolted the Scottish public. Witnessing neighbors, including young girls and elderly men, being executed for refusing to say a specific sentence turned the tide of sympathy toward the Covenanters and against the Stuart monarchy.