Engagers versus Remonstrants , where a secret agreement, or "Engagement", was signed to back Charles I with an army in return for implementing the Solemn League and Covenant albeit in a weakened, some would say a compromised, form. The origin of the dispute goes back to the year 1647, when, after difficult and intricate negotiations, Charles was delivered up to the English Parliament, and after an attempt to escape from
Hampton Court was taken and committed as a prisoner to
Carisbrooke Castle on the
Isle of Wight. While there, a secret treaty was framed between him and representatives from Scotland, in which he agreed under certain conditions to accept the
Solemn League and Covenant, and to establish Presbyterianism for three years in England. This treaty, known as the "Engagement," though approved by the Scottish Parliament, was rejected and condemned by the Commission of Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which instructed every minister to preach against it, and to use his utmost influence to prevent the
Marquis of Hamilton's expedition for the relief of the King from proving successful. The defeat of his army at
Preston, while it extinguished the hopes of his party, widened the breach which had now been made in the once united ranks of the
Covenanters. Two parties were formed, which regarded one another with unconcealed hostility: the
Engagers, so called from the Engagement which Hamilton had made with the King; and the Remonstrants or strict Covenanters who were under the leadership of
Warriston and
Argyll. James Guthrie wanted the full force of the Covenants in national life in all parts of the kingdoms and opposed the Engagement and supporting the army which backed it; he became a Remonstrator. Guthrie was one of three Scottish church commissioners who had an interview with Cromwell in Edinburgh following his defeat of the Engagers’ invasion of England in 1648. Cromwell assured the commissioners that he was "for monarchical government, and that in the person of the king and his posterity". Cromwell called Guthrie "the short man who would not bow."
Resolutioners versus Protestors This breach was still further widened by an Act of the Scottish Parliament, known as the
Act of Classes, which was passed on 23 January 1649, a week before
Charles was beheaded. According to the act, the various ranks of Malignants or Engagers were declared incapable of holding any office of public trust or employment, whether in Church or in State. The first result of this Act was to throw the management of public affairs into the hands of those who were afterwards defeated by Cromwell at
Dunbar in September 1650. Following Dunbar there was some soul-searching to determine what had gone wrong. This led to the
Western Remonstrance which was read before the government on 22 October 1650 at Stirling. The Remonstrance was also considered by the Commission of Assembly starting on 25 November 1650. Essentially God was considered to have withdrawn his favour due to Achan-like sin at a personal and a national level. They did not shy away from listing even the king's sins. The proposed remedy was repentance and purification. Others took a different view and blamed the defeat at Dunbar on the purging of some 5000 able men from the army and therefore wanted the conditions for entry into the army relaxed. On 14 December 1650, the Commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at Perth replied to a question from the government as to who would be allowed to fight in the army. Following this reply the Parliament on 23 December 1650 passed its "Act of Levy" which in a contra-Gideon-like manner, expanded the list of those who would be allowed to fight. By and by, when the Engagers returned to power, the Act of Classes was repealed, and a new army was levied which, to a large extent, was officered and filled by men who were regarded as unfaithful to the Covenant. In favour of this proceeding, however, the Church, forsaking the higher sphere, issued certain Resolutions, which were strenuously protested against by a large and influential minority. Such was the origin of the controversy between the Resolutioners and Protesters, which raged with unabated animosity for many years. Those in favour of the loosening of the conditions for fighting were known as Resolutioners, a name derived from their approval of the resolutions of Commission and Parliament for the levy of 23 December. The Church of Scotland was now unhappily split into two contending sections. Old friends who had fought side by side in earlier days became opponents, and there was much bitterness and occasionally misrepresentations, due in some cases to misunderstandings, exaggerated reports or false rumours. Of the Resolutioners,
Robert Douglas was, by head and shoulders, the acknowledged leader. His ministerial supporters included
David Dickson,
Robert Baillie, and James Wood. Among the Protesters the most outstanding ministers were James Guthrie,
Samuel Rutherfurd,
Andrew Cant,
Patrick Gillespie, and
John Livingstone; and, of the elders,
Wariston and Sir John Cheisly; the two most strenuous fighters being Guthrie and Wariston. Samuel Rutherford is known to have stayed with Guthrie in Stirling. ==Guthrie's political and theological views==