_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 218‒221; Rushworth,
III., 944.
The General Assembly met at Edinburgh, on the 12th of August, 1639,
and the Earl of Traquair attended as Royal Commissioner. The Assembly
again condemned Episcopacy in clear and emphatic terms, and the King’s
Commissioner concurred. The Covenanters now felt themselves strong, and
the proceedings of the committees appointed by the Glasgow Assembly,
touching the deposition of ministers, were approved, with a statement
that those deposed merely for signing the bishops’ declinature, or
receiving the Liturgy, might be restored on their repentance and
submission. The Assembly renewed the Covenant, and requested the
Commissioner and the Privy Council to pass an act commanding every one
in the nation to subscribe it. The Council agreed to this, and passed
the desired enactment. Thus the Covenant was becoming an instrument of
intolerance. On the 30th of August, the last day of the Assembly, the
members presented a petition to the Royal Commissioner against a book
entitled “Large Declaration Concerning the Late Tumults in Scotland,”
lately published in the King’s name. They requested the King to recall
this book, and to grant authority to summon and bring to Scotland all
Scotsmen, who were known or suspected to have been concerned in its
composition, especially Walter Balcanqual. The Commissioner promised
to place the petition before the King, and to report the result.¹ The
Assembly appointed its next meeting to be held at Aberdeen, in July
1640.
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_. The book which gave so much offence
to the Assembly is the one often referred to in the notes
of the preceding pages of this volume――_Large Declaration_:
it is well known to all students of Scottish history, and it
contains valuable historical papers and documents about the
troubles in Scotland; though, of course, it presented many
remarks and reflections which were extremely offensive to the
Covenanters.
Parliament met on the day after the Assembly rose, but it accomplished
very little. Bills concerning the abolition of Episcopacy passed the
Lords of the Articles, but they were not brought up for the sanction
of the House. Time passed, and messages went between the Royal
Commissioner and the King. Charles’s fatal policy of always insisting
on retaining something, which he imagined might be of use to him in the
future, led him to maintain the position, that he would not consent to
any act of Parliament rescinding the existing laws by which Episcopacy
had been established. This frustrated the object for which Parliament
had met. At length Parliament was prorogued to the 14th of November,
and then till the 2nd of June, 1640, nothing having been settled.
The Covenanters rightly thought that the King was trifling with the
important matters in dispute, and thus the causes of dissension were
continued and intensified.
Charles again resolved to chastise the rebellious Scots. He still
desired to act as a despotic King, and hoped to extinguish all
opposition in Scotland. He summoned his English Parliament, which met
in April, 1640. A majority of this Parliament refused to grant supplies
till they had obtained redress of their grievances; but rather than
submit, the King dissolved Parliament in anger, after a session of
three weeks. Charles now decided to raise money and an army by other
modes――such as benevolences, forced loans, commission of array, or in
any other way by which he could muster a force to fight against the
Scots. But difficulties were fast thickening around him, and when the
2nd of June came, he again sent a Commissioner to prorogue the Scottish
Parliament. In carrying this out, however, a formal mistake was made,
which the Estates instantly seized upon; and accordingly they proceeded
to business. They enacted that henceforward the nobles, the barons, and
the burgesses should be considered as constituting the three Estates of
the kingdom, and all former acts permitting churchmen to sit and vote
in Parliament were repealed. The Acts of the last General Assembly were
ratified; and it was commanded that all His Majesty’s subjects should
sign the Covenant. It was also enacted that a Parliament should meet
every three years; and before separating they appointed a permanent
committee of the Estates, to act when Parliament was not sitting.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., pages
288‒292, 299‒303. This parliament condemned the King’s _Large
Declaration_, “as full of untruths and lies, derogatory to
his Majesty’s honour and to his loyal subjects,” and they
ordered the authors of it to be punished, according to the
laws of the kingdom. Page 302.
The General Assembly met at Aberdeen in the end of July, 1640; but
no commissioner appeared to represent the King. The Aberdeen doctors
and several other northern ministers were tried before the Assembly,
and some of them deposed from the ministry. Acts were passed against
the revilers of the Covenant; against witches and charmers; and for
abolishing the monuments of idolatry. The Assembly had also under
consideration the practice of private meetings, but there was a
difference of opinion on this point among the members. Ultimately an
act was passed for the regulation of family worship, by which private
meetings, if held at improper hours, or composed of more than one
family, were forbidden.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_,
Volume I., pages 248‒255.
But the Covenanters did not trust merely to the acts of the Assembly
and of Parliament to secure their rights and further their ends.
Throughout the spring and summer they had been actively engaged in
organising their army; and had even sought to strengthen themselves
by soliciting the assistance of France. In the north war was already
declared against all the enemies of the Covenant. The Scots sent two
manifestoes into the North of England, one a broadside for popular
distribution, and the other in the form of a small pamphlet, in
which they protested that the matter should be brought to an issue;
as they could not afford to continue in arms for an indefinite
period. Therefore, they were coming to England to ask redress of
their grievances from the King; although they could scarcely hope for
redress from him, but rather from a Parliament. Copies of the Scottish
manifesto were freely circulated in London on the 12th of August;
and Charles at a Council held on the 16th of August, announced his
intention to proceed in person to York, and to assume the command of
his disorganised army. On the 20th the King began his march from London
to York, which he reached on the 23rd. His army consisted of about
twenty-two thousand foot and three thousand cavalry, but they were
neither well disciplined nor well led. On the 21st of August a Scottish
army of twenty-five thousand men under the command of General Leslie,
advanced southward, and crossed the Tweed at Coldstream. As soon as
they entered English territory, a manifesto was issued explaining the
object of the expedition and justifying it. The Scots advanced and
forced the passage of the Tyne, defeating the royal troops; and on
the 30th they took Newcastle and occupied it. They next advanced on
Durham, and occupied the line of the Tees. On the 4th of September
the Scots petitioned the King to listen to their grievances, and with
the concurrence of the English Parliament to arrange a lasting peace.
Charles ordered Hamilton, the Secretary for Scotland, to intimate
to the Scots that the King had summoned the Peers to meet at York on
the 24th of September; and if they would then express their demands
more definitely, he would give them a fitting answer; and meantime he
desired them not to advance farther. In reply the Scots restated their
demands thus;――that his Majesty would be pleased to ratify the acts of
the last Parliament; that the Castle of Edinburgh, and other fortresses,
should be occupied only for the security and defence of the country;
that Scotsmen in England and Ireland should not be molested for having
signed the Covenant; that the incendiaries, who had caused the troubles,
should be brought to trial; that the expense incurred by the war,
should be refunded, with the advice and concurrence of the English
Parliament.
About this time, a number of the English nobles also petitioned
the King to summon a Parliament. His difficulties daily increasing
he offered to negotiate with the Scots, and summoned the English
Parliament to meet at Westminster, on the 3rd of November, 1640. This
assemblage was afterwards known as the Long Parliament. Within a few
weeks after it met, Stafford was impeached.
The Commissioners appointed by the King and by the Covenanters met at
Ripon on the 2nd of October, 1640, and agreed that the Scottish army
should remain inactive at Newcastle; for this they were to receive
eight hundred and fifty pounds a-day. Thus matters remained for some
time, till the place of negotiation was transferred to London. After
the 26th of October, the Scottish commissioners and the ministers who
accompanied them, took an active interest in the policy of the English
Parliamentary party. After long and very difficult treating, terms
of peace were agreed upon, and ratified on the 10th of August, 1641.
The main points of the agreement were that the acts of the Parliament
of 1640 should be ratified; that the Castle of Edinburgh and other
fortresses should be restored and used for the defence of the kingdom,
with the advice of Parliament; that the King should not appoint men to
office who had been declared disqualified by Parliament. “And whereas
unity in religion and uniformity in Church government has been desired
by the Scots, as a special means of preserving peace between the two
kingdoms, his Majesty, with the advice of both Houses of Parliament,
does approve of the affection of his subjects of Scotland, in their
desire of having conformity of Church government between the two
nations; and as the Parliament has already taken into consideration the
reformation of Church government, so they proceed therein in due time
as shall best conduce to the glory of God, the peace of the Church,
and the good of both kingdoms.”¹ The Scots desired the abolition of
Episcopacy in England, and their Commissioners argued for a union in
religion between the two Kingdoms. On the 17th of May 1641, this matter
was debated in the House of Commons, and a resolution in favour of
conformity in Church government was carried. Yet, the House of Commons,
though willing to overthrow Episcopacy, had no enthusiasm for Scottish
Presbyterianism. At this time, the King wished to please the Scots,
and make them contented, and thereby to separate their cause from that
of the English. To promote this end, he resolved to visit Scotland.
Accordingly he arrived in Edinburgh on the 14th of August, 1641.
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., page 263; _Acts
of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 341 _et
seq._, pages 371‒382.
The Estates had been sitting in Edinburgh since the middle of July;
and the King attended a meeting of the House on the 18th of August,
and delivered a speech. He spoke of the differences which had arisen
between him and his subjects, and of his anxiety to settle them; of
his love to his native country, which had caused him to face and to
overcome many difficulties in order to be there at that time. He
referred to the royal power which had descended to him through one
hundred and eight descents, and which they had so often professed to
maintain. In short, he said, “the end of my coming is to perfect all
that I have promised; and withal to quiet those distractions which
have, and may fall out amongst you; and this I am resolved fully and
cheerfully to do; for I can do nothing with more cheerfulness than to
give my people content and a general satisfaction.”¹
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume III., pages 40‒41; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 362 _et seq._
Parliament sat long, and occupied itself with many things. It passed
three hundred and nine acts, which touched upon many points of a
personal and social character, as well as political and religious
matters. It enacted that no one should sit in Parliament till he gave
in his adherence to the Covenant. The acts of the Parliament of June
1640, were ratified, and received the royal assent; the prerogatives
of the Crown were diminished; and in several points, the constitution
of Parliament itself was changed. The King seems to have thought that
he would be able to manage the English, if he could only pacify the
Scots. He left Edinburgh for England on the 18th of November. But the
breach between him and his English subjects was daily widening. His
interference with the freedom of the members of Parliament aroused
intense excitement, and he found the city of London an unsafe place for
him. Accordingly he removed his court thence to York in the spring of
1642.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., pages
338‒660.
The Covenanters might now have been satisfied, as they had obtained
all that they demanded; but other views and aims had entered into
their minds, and they desired to give their principles a wider range of
application, therefore when the opportunity for this presented itself,
it was natural for them to embrace it. While England was entering on
the struggle of civil war――the Parliamentary party and the King’s party
each preparing for the contest――it was impossible for the Scots to
remain passive observers of the momentous conflict.¹
¹ Carlyle, in his _Letters and Speeches of Cromwell_, gives
a vivid sketch of the proceedings of the King at this time.
“January 10, 1642, the King and his court quit Whitehall, the
five members and parliament proposing to return to-morrow,
with the whole city in arms round them. He left Whitehall;
never saw it again till he came to lay down his head there.
“On the 9th of March, 1642, he is at York, where his Hull
Magazine, gathered for service against the Scots, is lying
near; where a great Earl of Newcastle and other northern
potentates will help him; where at least London and its
parliament, now grown so fierce, is far off.
“There we will leave him, attending Hull Magazine in vain;
exchanging messages with his parliament, messages, missives,
printed and written papers without limit. Law-pleadings of
both parties before the great tribunal of the English nation,
each party striving to prove itself right, and within the
verge of Law; preserved still in acres of typography, once
thrilling alive in every fibre of them; now a mere torpor,
readable by few creatures, not rememberable by any. It is
too clear his Majesty will have to get himself an army,
by commissions of array, by subscriptions of loyal plate,
pawning of crown jewels, or how he can. The parliament by
all methods is endeavouring to do the like. London subscribed
horses and plate, every kind of plate, even to women’s
thimbles, to an unheard of amount; and when it came to
actual enlisting, in London alone there were four thousand
enlisted in one day. The reader may meditate that one fact.
Royal messages, parliamentary messages, acres of typography
thrilling alive in every fibre of them――these go on slowly
abating, and military preparations go on steadily increasing
till the 23rd of October next. The King’s commissions of
array for Leicestershire came out on the 12th of June,
commissions for other counties followed at convenient
intervals; the parliament’s ordinance for the militia, rising
cautiously pulse after pulse towards clear emergence, had
attained completion the week before. The question puts itself
to every English soul, which of these will you obey?――and
in all questions of English ground, with swords getting
out of their scabbards, and yet the constable’s baton still
struggling to rule supreme, there is a most confused solution
of it going on.”――Volume I., pages 163‒164.
The General Assembly met at St. Andrews on the 27th of July, 1642, the
Earl of Dunfermline presenting himself as royal Commissioner. Another
power requested the friendship of the Assembly, the English Parliament
having addressed a message to it, touching their quarrel with the King.
Success had rapidly enlarged the scheme of the Scotch Presbyterians;
as flattering opportunities appeared to be opening before their view,
they began to assume an aggressive attitude, and to entertain hopes
of establishing their polity throughout England. A powerful party
in England was intently bent on overthrowing Episcopacy, and the
Parliamentary leaders easily secured the assistance of the Covenanters.
In the Assembly’s answer to the English Parliament, the question was
stated at length; by a union of the Churches of the two kingdoms, they
might hope for a time when war and heresy should cease in the Island,
and truth and peace reign supreme. The Assembly appointed a large
committee, including a number of the nobles and the most distinguished
ministers, with power to forward the work which the Church had
undertaken, to consult with the King, and with the Parliament, and if
necessary, to prepare a confession, a catechism, a directory, and a
form of polity. This commission was renewed in subsequent Assemblies.
At the same time, the Assembly despatched an address to the King,
professing their loyalty, but urging unity in religion, and uniformity
in Church government.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; _Baillie’s Letters and Journals_,
Volume II., pages 50‒55.
The letters of the Assembly were quickly answered, both by the King and
by the Parliamentary party. The latter announced the agreement of their
views with those of the Scots. They desired to see unity of religion
throughout his Majesty’s dominions; they stated that Episcopacy was
wrong in itself, and ought to be abolished; they intimated their
intention of calling an Assembly of learned divines to deliberate
on the subject, and invited some of the Scottish ministers to London
to assist at this Assembly on the 5th of November, 1642. This was
exceedingly satisfactory to the Covenanters. Shortly after, the English
Parliament passed an act abolishing Episcopacy; but, when Parliament
overthrew one form of Church polity, it did not establish another
in England¹――a result which the Covenanters failed to foresee. Their
sympathies went with the Puritans and the Parliamentary party; but,
knowing as they did the feeling of the King, they naturally distrusted
him. Thus they became closely associated with the leaders of the Long
Parliament. There was still, however, a small party in Scotland who
remained loyal to the King.
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_,
Volume II., page 55.
The swell of feeling among the Scots, joined with their deepest
religious sentiments and convictions, rose higher and higher; and it
was resolved to hold a convention of the Estates. The King at first
refused his consent; but the Estates met at Edinburgh on the 22nd of
June, 1643, and Charles then agreed to sanction it, if it would keep
within prescribed limits. The convention, however, declared itself free
to do anything which it thought fit. This meeting was attended by a
larger number of members than usually assembled in a Scotch Parliament;
and the people were prepared for it by a solemn fast. A remonstrance
was read from the Commission of the General Assembly, stating the
dangers to which religion and the kingdom were exposed, and urging that
the nation should put itself in a position of defence, and that they
should look upon the cause of their brethren in England as their own,
and assist the English Parliament. This proposal was well received;
but the King’s party attempted to advance his interest. There followed
a hot and long debate on the question, as to whether the Scots should
actively intermeddle in the affairs of England.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume II., pages 75‒80.
This minister says――“At the day, June 22nd, was a most
frequent meeting of Estates, never a parliament so great; all
the barons and burghs were for the Commonweal”――that is, for
assisting the English parliament. _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 3‒4, 6, 8, 9, 13‒15, 24, 36‒38,
_et seq._
The General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 2nd of August, 1643, and
Sir Thomas Hope, the Lord-Advocate, appeared as the royal Commissioner.
On the opening day the members of the Assembly prepared themselves for
their task by fasting. On the 7th of August, four Commissioners from
the Long Parliament, one of whom was Sir Henry Vane, landed at Leith,
and a few days after they were introduced to the Assembly. They stated
in the Assembly that they warmly appreciated the energy of the Scottish
Church in extinguishing popery; that they were anxious to have this
reform completed among themselves; that they had already removed
the High Commission, expelled the bishops from the House of Lords,
abolished Episcopacy, and summoned an Assembly of divines, which had
now met at Westminster. They therefore earnestly entreated the Scots to
assist their brethren in England, then so hardly pressed by the King’s
forces, and exposed to the utmost peril. The proposals of the English
were much discussed in committee; but there were differences of opinion
in the Assembly. Some of the members thought that they should mediate
between the King and the parliament, without committing themselves;
but the opposite arguments of Johnston of Warriston and others at last
prevailed, and they agreed to cast in their lot with the leaders of
the Long Parliament. More debate took place concerning the tenor of
the agreement. The English commissioners proposed that a civil league
between the two nations should be formed, but the Scots would listen
to nothing save a religious covenant. The English then suggested that
toleration should be given to the Independents, as far as England
was concerned; but the Assembly would not agree to tolerate anything,
except presbyterianism in both kingdoms. After a long debate, the
document known as the “Solemn League and Covenant” was laid before
the Assembly, and unanimously accepted. The Estates also sanctioned
it in August, 1643. All the parties to this Covenant bound themselves
to preserve the reformed religion in Scotland, and to labour for the
reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and of Ireland, in
doctrine, in worship, in discipline, and in polity, according to the
word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches; to struggle
to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the closest
uniformity in religion, faith, polity, and form of worship; and without
respect of persons, to endeavour to extinguish popery, episcopacy,
heresy, schism, profaneness, and everything opposed to sound doctrine
and the power of godliness; and with equal constancy to endeavour to
preserve the rights and privileges of the parliaments and the liberties
of the kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the King’s person and
authority, that it may be manifest to the world that they had no
intention of diminishing his Majesty’s just power and greatness. With
the same faithfulness they promised to pursue and bring to condign
punishment all incendiaries and malignants who hindered the reformation
of religion, divided the King from his people, or one of the kingdoms
from the other, or formed factions among the people to defeat the ends
of this League and Covenant.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_,
Volume II., pages 88‒90, 95; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 41‒43.
The Solemn League and Covenant was carried to London, the 22nd
of September, 1643, being appointed for signing it. On that day
the members of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the
Westminster Assembly of divines signed the League and Covenant; and
it was afterwards subscribed by many in every county of England. “The
House of Commons and the Assembly of divines take the Covenant, the
old Scotch Covenant, slightly modified now into a Solemn League and
Covenant, in St. Margaret’s Church, Westminster. They lifted up their
hands _seriatim_, and then stept into the chancel to sign. Oliver
Cromwell signs, and next after him young Sir Henry Vane. There signed
in all about 220 honourable members that day. The whole parliamentary
party, down to the lowest constable or drummer in their pay, generally
signed. It was the condition of assistance from the Scots, who were
now calling out all fencible men from sixteen to sixty, for a third
expedition into England. A very solemn covenant, a vow of all the
people, of the awfulness of which we in these days of Custom-house
oaths, loose regardless talk, cannot form the smallest notion. Duke
Hamilton, seeing his painful Scotch diplomacy end all in this way,
flies to the King at Oxford,――is there put under arrest, sent to
Pendennis Castle near the Land’s End.” The immediate result of this
League was that a Scottish army of twenty thousand men crossed the
Tweed, to assist the Parliamentary army, and to seek conformity of
religion amid the scenes of civil war.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume II., pages 99, 102;
Carlyle’s _Letters and Speeches of Cromwell_, Volume I., page
189.
The theocratic ideas which I noticed in the second volume, had now
attained their greatest influence; the government of Scotland had
become a sort of theocracy. The power of the King was gone; the power
of the Estates was partly in abeyance; the General Assembly being the
ruling body. The ministers and elders constantly asserted that they
derived their authority from Jesus, the King and the Head of His Church.
Every act assumed a religious character; the war was religious, which
was proved by the fact that in the Old Testament the wars of God’s
people were called the wars of the Lord; and the hand of the Lord of
Hosts was on the side of the Covenanters. These ideas were associated
with the old Jewish exclusiveness and intolerance; and the Covenanters
were apt to regard themselves as the chosen people, and their own
Church as the only true one: to be a good Christian, it was necessary
to be a Covenanter. Romanism and Episcopacy were equally hateful to
them; and being firm and settled in their own convictions and opinions,
they gave no countenance to toleration.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,
Volume VI., pages 66‒68, 70, _et seq._
Seven Scotsmen attended the Assembly of divines at Westminster as
Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, viz.:――Henderson, Baillie,
Rutherford, and Gillespie, ministers; and Lord Maitland, Johnston
of Warriston, and Lord Cassillis. It has to be observed, that the
Assembly of divines, as constituted by the English Parliament, had
no authority in Scotland. The Scotch Commissioners declined to sit in
the Assembly as voting members; they preferred to take the position
of representatives of the Church of Scotland, and in London there was
a committee from the Scotch Estates to instruct and support them. As
representing Scotland, they might propose any point to the Assembly;
but their nation could not be compromised by the conclusions of the
Assembly. During their attendance at the Assembly, the Scots acted with
vigour and wisdom.
Baillie’s account of their introduction to the Assembly, and of their
proceedings in it, is interesting. “On Monday morning, the 20th of
December, 1643, we sent to both Houses of Parliament for a warrant
for our sitting in the Assembly. This was readily granted, and by Mr.
Henderson presented to the Prolocutor, who sent out three of their
ministers to convey us to the Assembly. Here no mortal man may enter
to see or hear, let be to sit, without a written order from both Houses
of Parliament. When we were brought in, Dr. Twisse made a long harangue
for our welcome, after so long and hazardous a voyage by sea and land
in so unseasonable a time of the year. When he ended, we sat down in
those places which we have since kept.... We sit commonly from nine in
the morning to one or two in the afternoon.... Ordinarily there were
present about three score of the divines. These are divided into three
committees; in one whereof every man is a member. No man is excluded
who pleases to come to any of the three. Every committee, as the
Parliament gives order in write to take any purpose into consideration,
takes a portion, and in the afternoon meeting prepares matters for the
Assembly, sets down their minds in distinct propositions, and backs
their propositions with texts of Scripture.... No man is called upon
to speak, but who stands up of his own accord, and speaks as long as
he pleases without interruption.... They follow the forms of their
Parliament.
“When our commissioners came up, they were desired to sit as members
of the Assembly; but they wisely declined to do so, since they came
up as Commissioners for our National Church to treat for uniformity,
they required to be dealt with in that capacity. They were willing as
private men to sit in the Assembly, and upon occasion to give their
advice on debated points; but, for the uniformity, they required that
a committee might be appointed from the Parliament and the Assembly
to treat with them on this subject. All this, after some sharp enough
debates, was granted.” In regard to the office of ruling elders――laymen,
“many a very brave dispute have we had upon them these ten days. I
marvel at the great learning, quickness, and eloquence, together with
the great courtesy and discretion in speaking, of these divines....
This is a point of high consequence, and upon no other we expect so
great difficulty, except alone on Independency; wherewith we purpose
not to meddle in haste till it please God to advance our army, which
we expect will much assist our arguments.
“It was my advice, which Mr. Henderson presently applauded and gave me
thanks for it――to eschew a public rupture with the Independents till
we were more able for them. As yet a presbytery to these people is
conceived to be a strange monster. It was for our good therefore, to
go on hand and hand so far as we did agree against the common enemy,
hoping that in our differences, when we behoved to come to them, God
would give us light. In the meantime we would essay to agree upon the
Directory of Worship, wherein we expected no small help from these men
to abolish the great idol of England――the Service book――and to erect
in all the parts of worship a full conformity to Scotland in all things
worthy to be spoken of.”¹
¹ _Letters and Journals_, Volume II., pages 107‒110, 111, 117.
The great difficulty was Church government. The Assembly of divines
proposed the presbyterian scheme; but the Long Parliament adopted
it only on the condition of its subordination to Parliament. The
Independents though few in number were powerful in Parliament; owing
to their strength of will, their intellect, and their energy of
character, they wielded much influence both in the army and in the
senate. The politicians of the Long Parliament, though they had
abolished Episcopacy, were unwilling to give independent power to
any form of Church organisation. The Scots Covenanters then began to
see that there was little hope of establishing their polity over the
British dominions. When the Westminster Assembly closed in 1648 its
great scheme of Church government practically ended with it.
This Assembly was constituted by an ordinance of the Long Parliament,
on the 12th of June, 1643; Parliament named the members, and when
difficulties and disputes arose, they were to be referred to Parliament.
The Assembly sat long, and executed much laborious work; the general
drift of which, when completed, was decidedly Calvinistic. They framed
“A Form of Church Government,” “A Directory for Public Worship,” “A
Confession of Faith,” and two Catechisms. The Directory was brought to
Scotland by Baillie and Gillespie, and the General Assembly, in 1645,
sanctioned it, enjoining it to be observed by all the ministers of the
kingdom. The Westminster Confession of Faith was adopted by the General
Assembly in 1647, and in the following year the Assembly sanctioned
the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The Scotch Parliament ratified this
Confession and the acts of the General Assembly.¹
¹ _Abridgements of the Acts of the General Assembly_, 138,
345; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., page
364, in the year 1649. No mention is made in the Act of the
Assembly “of the old Confession of 1560. It may be supposed
that the Assembly held both their old Confession and their
new to be true, and therefore consistent with each other; but
this is not stated. Whether in any sense they held the old
Confession to be still binding is a more difficult matter.
As the new one is to be a Confession for the three kingdoms,
it may be argued that the old Scottish Confession might
still continue as a municipal or domestic authority; but
as the change is founded on the obligation to uniformity
in religion, the presumption seems rather in favour of the
exclusive authority of the new Creed.”――Innes’ _Law of Creeds
in Scotland_, page 63.
But it should be mentioned that this Confession and the Catechisms were
not sent into Scotland for observance by any command of the Assembly
of divines, or by any authority in England; the Church of Scotland
examined and approved them of her own accord. The body of doctrine
contained in this Confession, and abridged in the Longer and the
Shorter Catechisms, has long been the Creed of the Church of Scotland;
and has largely influenced the opinions and the character of the
people.
While the Covenanters’ army was in England assisting the English
Parliamentary party, the government of Scotland was managed by a
committee of the Estates and the commission of the General Assembly.
Some of the nobles and others formed a Royalist party. The Earl of
Montrose who had been for some years an ardent Covenanter, now turned
round to the King’s side; and was commissioned by his Majesty to raise
the royal standard in Perthshire, in August, 1644. He was soon at the
head of three thousand men, many of whom were Irish Roman Catholics.
His short career and exploits have often been detailed at length, and
can only be concisely handled here; besides, his temporary victories
over undisciplined bodies of men merely added to the suffering of the
war, and had little influence on the main stream of history.
Montrose’s force consisted of one thousand five hundred men, Irish and
Scots, who sailed from Ireland under Alaster Macdonald, and landed in
Ardnamurchan early in July 1644, and a number of Highlanders who rose
at the call of Montrose to fight for the King. Montrose concentrated
his men at Blair Athole. There were three bodies of armed men in the
field against him. Argyle was advancing from the west, another army
was stationed at Aberdeen, and a third, under Lord Elcho, consisting
of the men of Fife and the lower parts of Perthshire, to keep him in
check if he attempted to advance along the valley of the Tay. Lord
Elcho had about six thousand men, including seven hundred horse and
some artillery, and they were drawn up in the valley three miles west
of Perth to oppose the advance of Montrose. They were accompanied by
Covenanting preachers, who endeavoured to stir up their enthusiasm.
Montrose had three thousand men, and he knew well how to use them to
the best advantage. He drew up his men three deep and extended his
line to the utmost, and presented a front as long as the enemy’s. On
the afternoon of September 1st, 1644, he attacked the Covenanters under
Lord Elcho, and the first onset of the Highlanders threw them into
confusion, and in an instant Elcho’s army was routed and flying in all
directions. Two thousand of the Covenanters were slain in the pursuit.
In the evening Montrose was master of Perth.
On the 4th, Montrose commenced his march for Aberdeen. In his progress
northward, the Earl of Airlie and some of the gentry of Angus joined
his standard, and added to his force a small party of horsemen. The
Marquis of Huntly could not make up his mind to follow Montrose, while
two of his sons, Lord Gordon, the eldest, and Lord Lewis, the youngest,
were in the Covenanting army through the influence of their mother’s
brother――Argyle. The Covenanting force of two thousand foot and five
hundred horse were posted on the side of a height in advance of the
city. On the morning of the 13th of September, Montrose reached the
vicinity of Aberdeen, on the west side of the town. He summoned the
magistrates to surrender the town, but they declined. He then prepared
for battle, and placed his horse on the wings of his line. Montrose
began the attack, and after a severe engagement, the Covenanters were
completely defeated and fled in confusion. Montrose’s army entered the
town, massacred the unarmed citizens on the streets, and sacked the
city. This proceeding greatly heightened the hatred of the Lowland
people against Montrose.
He appealed to the Gordons for assistance, but they refused to move,
and he was forced to betake himself to the hills as Argyle was in
pursuit of him. Montrose marched westward to Rothiemurchus, and there
buried the cannon which he had taken at Aberdeen, and thence he winded
his way back to Blair Athole. But Argyle was advancing behind him, so
Montrose moved eastward, and then turned westward, crossed the Dee and
Don, and took up a position at Fyvie Castle. Argyle thought that he
had at last an opportunity of crushing his enemy. The Castle was then
surrounded on the north, the west, and the south by bogs, through which
only a narrow strip of ground allowed approach to an enemy; so Argyle
made his attack on the eastern side, where there were no obstacles.
Montrose posted his men on a hilly ridge, and when Argyle’s men
advanced to the attack, they were warmly received, and after a severe
contest were driven back. This gave Montrose an opportunity of retiring,
Argyle following him to Blair Athole, and back again from west to east,
but he failed to overtake his foe. Argyle then returned to Edinburgh
and delivered up his commission to the Committee of Estates.
The Macdonalds and other clansmen advised Montrose to make a raid into
the territories of Argyle, and plunder his valleys round Inveraray. On
the 13th of December, 1644, Montrose entered the district of Argyle and
proceeded to waste it. Cattle and sheep were destroyed, and homesteads
burnt to the ground; no quarter was given, and every man of the name
of Campbell who fell into their hands was ruthlessly slain. Leaving a
desert behind him, he marched slowly through the valley of the great
lakes. When he reached Loch Ness he ascertained that his progress
was barred by the Earl of Seaforth, at the head of five thousand men,
mustered from the northern counties. Montrose had Seaforth’s army
before him, while Argyle had summoned two Lowland regiments to his
assistance, and with these and the remnant of his own clansmen who had
escaped, he took up his position with three thousand men at Inverlochy.
Thus it appeared that Montrose was at last caught in a trap――an army
in front of him and another in his rear. He had only about one thousand
five hundred men around him, yet he at once resolved to attack Argyle.
In order to prevent the Campbells from retreating, he turned to the
left, and advanced through the rugged pass of Corryarrick. On the night
of the 1st of February, 1645, by the bright light of the moon, Montrose
saw the Campbells in front of him, between the mountain and the shore.
On the morning of the 2nd February, Argyle had no alternative but
fight, as his enemy was too near for retreat. Argyle had dislocated his
shoulder by a fall from his horse, and he was easily persuaded to take
refuge in a vessel lying in the loch, while he gave the command of his
army to Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck, an experienced soldier.
Montrose had a small company of horsemen, and at the moment when he
began the attack, he ordered the trumpeter to sound the cavalry charge,
which carried dismay into the enemy’s ranks. He then led his whole
force against Argyle’s centre. For a short time the Campbells fought
bravely; but at last they wavered, broke, and fled in utter confusion.
To the Lowland men quarter was given, but to the Campbells no quarter,
and about one thousand five hundred of them were slain under the eyes
of Argyle. For some time the Campbells ceased to be a power in the
western Highlands. Montrose was greatly elated by the victory, and
imagined that he would soon subdue the whole kingdom.
Shortly after the battle, Montrose marched in pursuit of Seaforth, who
had blocked his way at the north-eastern end of the lakes, but Seaforth
fled. Montrose marched round, and when he reached Elgin Lord Gordon and
Lewis Gordon, Huntly’s sons, joined him, and their followers supplied
him with a small body of cavalry. Seaforth and Sir James Grant joined
Montrose at Elgin, and thus saved their estates from plunder: but the
lands and farmhouses of the Covenanters from Inverness to Kintore were
ruthlessly plundered and destroyed. On the 11th of February the Scotch
Parliament declared Montrose and his chief supporters to be guilty of
treason. He then marched southward, and when he reached Forfarshire,
he found his advance checked by Baillie and Hurry. Much time was spent
in manœuvring. At last Baillie marched away and entered Fife. Instead
of following him Montrose proceeded to Dunkeld, where his army rapidly
melted away, many of the Highlanders returning home. In a short time
he was left with only six hundred foot and two hundred horse. On the
3rd of April he commenced to march on Dundee, and on the 4th he forced
an entrance into the town, and the sack was immediately begun. In the
midst of the tumult, tidings came that Baillie and Hurry with their
whole force were rapidly advancing to the relief of the town. To fight
them was impossible; but Montrose drew off his men from the prey on
which they were intent, and marched out of the eastern gate as Baillie
was entering the western one. Forming his one hundred and fifty
horsemen as a rearguard, he placed two hundred of his best men in the
last ranks of the foot, to face about and support the horsemen in case
of an attack. Baillie followed close on Montrose, and before nightfall
he made a charge which was repelled, but he resolved to out-general his
enemy. While Montrose and his small party were running onward in the
dark towards Arbroath, Baillie was rapidly advancing to the left of
their line of march, with the intention of cutting them off from the
hills to the north-east, in order to hold them against the sea when
they reached Arbroath. After a short time, however, Montrose wheeled
to the right and slipped past Baillie. At last Baillie discovered his
enemy’s tactic, and started in pursuit on the right track. He came
in sight of the enemy separated about three miles from the shelter of
the hills. Montrose’s men were tired out and had fallen asleep on the
ground; but when Baillie’s cavalry approached, the officers managed to
rouse a sufficient number to present a front to the enemy, compelling
the hostile horsemen to withdraw and enabling his small party to escape
to the hills.
For some time Montrose wandered about Perthshire with very few
followers, and had again to begin the work of collecting a force. On
the 20th of April, 1645, Aboyne joined him at Balquhidder. Baillie was
watching the Highlands from Perth, and Hurry had gone north to muster
the adherents of the Covenant for an attack upon the Gordons. Montrose
moved northward and Macdonald rejoined him on the march, and in the
upper stretch of the valley of the Dee he met Lord Gordon at the head
of a company of horsemen. He was again between the two hostile armies,
and to save the lands of the Gordons from plunder, he resolved to
attack Hurry. Montrose advanced toward the upper region of the valley
of the Spey; but when Hurry ascertained that his enemy was descending
the valley of the Spey, he formed his plan. With the aim of drawing
Montrose into a hostile quarter, Hurry marched from Inverness to meet
him near Elgin, and upon his approach, retreated so skilfully that
Montrose was unable to injure him. On the night of the 8th of May,
Montrose had reached the village of Auldearn, intending to follow Hurry
the following morning; but ere dawn on the morning of the 9th, Hurry
had fronted round, and intended by a rapid march to surprise Montrose;
and, if an untoward incident had not occurred, it seems probable that
he would have effected his object; but the night was rainy and wetted
the powder in the muskets of Hurry’s soldiers, some of whom fired a
volley to clear the barrels. It so happened that Macdonald’s sentinels
heard the sound, and thus Montrose had time to post his army in battle
array, which he did admirably. The battle was severe, and was long and
fiercely contested; the greater part of Hurry’s infantry stood their
ground and were slain on the field.
Yet this battle was not decisive, for Montrose had soon to contend
against forces more numerous than his own. Baillie advanced from
Athole northward, crossed the Dee with two thousand men, and was joined
in Strathbogie by Hurry with a hundred horsemen, the remnant of the
army defeated at Auldearn. Montrose’s force was greatly diminished,
and being unable to fight, he advanced up the valley of the Spey for
safety. Baillie remained in the north to ravage Huntly’s lands. After a
time Montrose had again increased his force, and marching in search of
Baillie, he found him in a strong position at Keith. He did not venture
to attack him, but marched southward, crossed the Don, and halted at
Alford, Baillie following him. On the 2nd of July Montrose placed his
men in battle array on an elevated position. Baillie crossed the river
and prepared for battle. The engagement began and raged furiously with
no apparent success on either side; but at last Montrose was victorious
and no quarter was given to the vanquished Covenanters. For some
time after the battle Montrose made little progress with his scheme
of conquering the kingdom for Charles I., as he had only reached
Fordoun on his way southward in the middle of July. The Parliament
was transferred to Perth on the 24th of July to attend to the arrival
of the new levies of men for the army; and Montrose crossed the Tay
with the object of annoying them as much as possible. He manœuvred
round Perth for some time, and retired without effecting anything of
importance.
On the 24th of August the battle of Kilsyth was fought, in which
Montrose completely defeated the Covenanters under Baillie and the
nobles. Upwards of five thousand of the Covenanters were slain in the
battle and pursuit. This was Montrose’s last victory, and henceforth
his real difficulties and the utter futility of his career became
painfully apparent. His vision of a great army of the Lowland Scots,
weary of the tyranny of Parliament and the Church, rallying under
the standard of the King’s Lieutenant, vanished like a dream. He had
disappointed the expectations of his actual followers, and they mourned
and returned to their homes. All his fond hopes were soon to be blasted.
His weakness was that he utterly failed to understand the real problem
of his day, and the spirit and feeling of the great majority of his
countrymen.
David Leslie on the 6th of September crossed the Border, from England
to join issue with Montrose. He encountered the great hero of six
victories at Philiphaugh on the morning of the 13th of September 1645,
and completely routed him and his army. After his defeat Montrose
lingered about the Highlands; and in May 1646, Charles I. ordered him
to disband his followers, and go into France. On the 3rd of September
he escaped from Scotland and proceeded thither.
Since the battle of Marston Moor, on the 2nd of July, 1644, in which
the Covenanting army took an active part, under David Leslie, the
King’s cause had been falling lower and lower; and by the end of the
year 1645 he was hardly able to keep the field. At last, driven to
despair, he fled to the Scottish army at Newark, in May, 1646. To
conquer the King had been an extremely difficult task; but to make a
treaty with him afterwards proved to be an impossible operation. He
was received by the Scots with every mark of respect, but he soon found
that his kingly powers were gone. The English parliament demanded that
the Scots should surrender the King, but they declined to do this. They
were still eager to extend Presbyterianism to England, and directly
attempted to work upon the King. He was asked both by the Scots
and by the English Presbyterians to abolish Episcopacy, to ratify
the proceedings of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, to sign the
Covenant himself, to compel others to sign it, and to establish a
Church in harmony with its principles. Charles on his conscience
declined to do this, as he had a firm conviction of the divine right
of Episcopacy. The Episcopal party in England was crushed, and the
struggle for supremacy now lay between the Independents and the
Presbyterians. The latter party were anxious to come to terms with the
King; and if he had agreed to their conditions, he might still have had
a chance of saving his crown and life, and of reigning as the head of a
limited monarchy. Commissioners from the Long Parliament, and from the
Scotch Estates implored the King to yield, but in vain. Charles pleaded
that his conscience would not allow him; and it may be admitted that
this was a redeeming feature of the King’s character. This attitude of
the King proved favourable to the power of the Independents, as most of
them desired the complete overthrow of the monarchy, and were strongly
opposed to the establishment of Presbyterianism in England.¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Duke of Hamilton_, pages 274‒283;
Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume II., pages 400,
406‒417.
While this tedious treating was still proceeding, the Long Parliament
intimated that there was no longer any necessity for the Scotch army
in England; while the Scots announced that they were ready to retire
as soon as their arrears were paid. In the matter of pay, however,
there was a serious difficulty, since between the amount claimed by
the Scots, and the amount which the English admitted as due, there
was a difference of many hundred thousands of pounds. The difference
between the two accounts in a large degree related to provisions,
which the English charged in full, but the greater part of which the
Scots asserted never came to them, having been taken by the enemy at
sea, part of it lost, and part damaged. The English charged in full
a levy of twenty thousand pounds per month, which the Scots averred
never yielded half that sum; the English charged ammunition and arms
furnished, which the Scots contended should have been supplied at the
expense of the English, as they were used in their service, and so
on with other items in the accounts. The sum claimed by the Scots was
nearly two million pounds, of which they acknowledged the receipt of
seven hundred thousand, but which by the English mode of accounting,
as indicated above, was made out to be fourteen hundred thousand――thus
leaving seven hundred thousand of a difference between the sum claimed
by the Scots and the sum admitted as due by the Long Parliament.
Accordingly at this time the arrears due to the Scots, according
to their reckoning, amounted to more than a million. A long wrangle
between the parties ensued; and every item in the account was minutely
examined and hotly debated, till at last the Scots offered to accept a
gross sum of five hundred thousand pounds. On this there was a vehement
debate in the Long Parliament. Finally, the English agreed to pay a sum
of four hundred thousand pounds――one fourth of it before the Scots left
Newcastle, and the remainder by instalments. If this transaction had
been a collusive bargain for the purchase of the King, as Mr. Buckle
and other writers have asserted, there surely would not have been so
much minute examination of the accounts, so much debating in order to
reduce the Scotch side of the account: but seriously to say that the
Scots sold their King for this money is an absurdity only of those who
have never really investigated the matter.
The Long Parliament claimed a right to the possession of the King’s
person, and passed a resolution that it would dispose of him as it
thought fit. The Scots demurred to this, but the English determinedly
insisted that they must have the King. At last the Scotch Estates
agreed to let the King go to Holmby, in Northamptonshire, “there to
remain until he give satisfaction to both kingdoms in the propositions
of peace; but in the interim, that there be no harm, prejudice,
injury, nor violence done to his person.” On the 23rd of January, 1647,
the English Commissioners appointed to receive the King arrived at
Newcastle; and on the 30th of the month the Scotch army withdrew, and
proceeded to their own country.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages
239‒241.
The Presbyterians were bitterly opposed to the policy of the
Independents, who were waxing almost supreme in England. Towards the
end of the year 1647, the Scots sent commissioners to make a last
attempt to treat with the King, then a captive in the Isle of Wight.
He now promised to be the Covenanted King of a Presbyterian people,
and entered into a treaty with the Scots; but it came too late, and was
regarded as an act of treachery to the Long Parliament and the English
army, with whom he was at the time openly treating. This underhand
treaty with the Scots is known in history as “the Engagement.”
The Estates met at Edinburgh in March, 1648, agreed to the Engagement,
and commissioned an army to aid the King. But the commission of the
General Assembly was opposed to this, and proclaimed that the King’s
concessions were incomplete. They demanded that he should take the
Covenant himself, and at once establish Presbyterianism in England.
The time for half-measures was past, and they insisted that their whole
polity should be established throughout the three kingdoms. Parliament,
however, ordered the army to muster, and to fight for the King, while
the Duke of Hamilton was placed in command.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, pages 295‒318, _et
seq._; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages
33‒40, 44‒50.
When the General Assembly met at Edinburgh in July, 1648, the members
manifested a spirit of opposition to the resolution of the Estates.
The committee on public affairs, consisting of the leading men of the
Assembly, took up the question of the Engagement, and approved of all
the proceedings of the commission concerning it. In reply to a letter
from the committee of the Estates, the clergy again declared that they
saw no possibility of securing religion so long as the Engagement was
maintained; since a union of the Malignants against the Independents
was an unlawful combination, for both were enemies to the cause of the
Covenant, and therefore all association with them should be avoided.
They reiterated the demand, that before the King was restored to the
exercise of his power, he should be bound by a solemn oath, under
his hand and seal, for settling religion according to the Covenant;
that there should be no engagement without a solemn oath; and that
the Church ought to have the same interest in it as she had in the
League and Covenant. They insisted that the control of public affairs
should be entrusted only to persons of unquestioned integrity. Finally,
on the day the Assembly rose, the 12th of August, they addressed a
supplication to the King, in which his Majesty was told that he had
already caused the blood of many thousands to be shed by his obstinacy,
and warned him no longer to set at nought the word of exhortation, or
to incur the wrath of the Lord of Hosts, who brings down the mighty
from their throne, and scatters the proud in the imagination of their
hearts.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_,
Volume III., pages 52‒65.
While the nation was in this divided state, the army of the Engagers,
undisciplined and poorly equipped, entered England with the grand aim
of delivering the captive King from the power of sectaries. But the
Duke of Hamilton was not a military genius; and his army straggled
forward in several divisions, at too long distances from each other.
Cromwell attacked him at Preston, on the 17th of August, 1648, and
defeated the Scots in detail, finally scattering them. Hamilton himself
was taken prisoner, and shortly after he was tried and executed.¹
¹ Carlyle’s _Letters and Speeches of Cromwell_, Volume I.,
pages 330‒351.
When tidings of the defeat of the Engagers reached Scotland, Argyle,
Cassillis, and Eglinton assembled their adherents, and the clergy
joined them and called the people to arms. Some of the ministers, at
the head of their followers, marched towards Edinburgh, preaching and
praying by the way to excited crowds of Covenanters. The Committee
of Estates, who had supported the Engagement, after some attempts at
resistance, gave up the struggle; and Argyle with other nobles, assumed
the government. Cromwell had advanced to the vicinity of Berwick,
when Argyle and his party came to terms with him, and invited him to
Edinburgh. He arrived in the capital on the 4th of October, 1648, and
was received with much respect. His object was the suppression of all
those concerned in the Engagement, and in this the party at the head of
affairs in Scotland concurred with him; and then Cromwell renewed the
Covenant along with his new allies. The leader of the English army was
delighted with his reception; and in a letter to the House of Commons,
he says:――“I have received, and so have the officers with me, many
honours and civilities, from the city of Edinburgh, from the Committee
of Estates, and the ministers; with a noble entertainment,――which we
may not own as done to us, but as done to your servants.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 379‒382.
The Estates met on the 4th of January, 1649. The members were mostly
those who had been opposed to the Engagement, and those who had since
renounced it, the Earl of Loudon being chosen president for the session.
They resolved to begin the session by publicly humbling themselves
before the Lord for their sins, and to renew the Solemn League and
Covenant, according to the order set down by the commission of the
General Assembly. All the Acts of Parliament sanctioning the late
Engagement were repealed, and some of the officers of state were
deprived of their posts. But their most sweeping statute was the “Act
of Classes,” for purging the judicatories and places of public trust,
which applied to all persons in any way concerned with “the late
unlawful Engagement,” and to other persons guilty of certain sins, or
who neglected family worship. Thus the parliament itself was purged, a
number of ministers deposed, and all officials suspected of malignancy,
turned out of their offices.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 335,
341‒346, 352‒356.
The party at the head of affairs in Scotland, it seems pretty evident,
did not fully realise or foresee that a power was arising to crush both
them and their Church polity. At the moment when they were indulging
the hope that their triumph was at hand, the committee of the English
army was already taking steps to arraign the King.
The narrative of the trial of Charles I. belongs to English history,
and has often been admirably told. The Scotch Estates, through their
Commissioners at London, remonstrated against any injury to the King’s
person, and insisted that it was on this very condition that they had
consented to part with him; but his fate was decreed. On the 30th of
January, 1649, he was beheaded before his own palace of Whitehall.
It was Charles’s lot to be educated and trained in a one-sided and
pernicious political belief. He seems to have been almost incapable
of distinguishing between his moral and his political rights; and this
led his comparatively narrow mind to assume and to maintain that his
political position gave him an unquestionable right to dictate to his
people the form of their worship. Moreover, he was placed in trying
circumstances, and found himself face to face with great political and
religious problems, which he failed to appreciate and to surmount.
The following opinion of a foreign historian on the fate of the King
is worth quoting:――“It would have been easy for him to have saved
his life, had he conceded to the Scots the exclusive domination of
presbyterianism in England, or to the Independents the practical
freedom of the army as they themselves desired. That he did not do so
is his merit towards England. Had he given his word to dissolve the
episcopal government of the Church, and to alienate its property for
ever, it is impossible to see how it could ever have been restored.
Had he granted such a position to the army as was asked in the
four articles, the self-government of the corporation and of the
Commons, and the later parliamentary government itself, would have
become impossible. So far the resistance which he offered cannot be
estimated highly enough. The overthrow of the constitution, which
the Independents openly intended, made him fully conscious, perhaps
not of their ultimate intention――the establishment of a republic, but
certainly of his own position. So far there was certainly something of
a martyr in him, if the man can be so called who values life less than
the cause for which he is fighting, and in perishing himself saves it
for the future.”¹
¹ Ranke’s _History of England_, Volume II., page 553.
In the latter part of the third volume of Dr. Masson’s
elaborate and valuable work, _The Life of Milton_, there is
a full and complete account of the trial and the execution
of Charles the First.
Viewed from a political and moral standpoint, the Covenanting struggle
was a very important factor in Scottish civilisation. The sole aim of
James VI. in his constant efforts to establish Episcopacy in Scotland,
was to render religion completely subservient to the power of the State,
and to compel every one to recognise and yield an abject submission to
the absolute supremacy of the King in all things civil and religious.
In short, this was the view of James VI., Charles I., Charles II., and
James VII., they all claimed the power to impose on the people whatever
form of religion they thought fit. Although the contest thus forced
upon the Scottish people was at the outset ecclesiastical and religious,
and even in this relation its influence in moulding the character of
the Scots of the seventeenth century was very great; inasmuch that
in those days religion was a real power, and the Covenanters were
intensely earnest and firmly held their religious convictions; they
were prepared to make any sacrifice for the tenets of their faith.
Yet, as matters then stood, the religious problems could not be settled
without raising many other collateral questions, some of them even more
important than the original problem. Thus the controversy once raised
soon assumed a very wide range. It compelled the combatants on both
sides to have recourse to the original and natural rights of man, and
the principles of justice, as a solid foundation for their claims. For
this the Reformation and George Buchanan had prepared the way. By their
constant appeals to conscience and to private judgment, the Reformers
had taught men to reason and to think, instead of blindly and
submissively bowing their heads to the unlimited claims of authority.
The Scots learned and practised this lesson. In self-defence they took
their stand upon first principles, and based their claims upon the
inalienable rights of man. They boldly assailed and demolished the
claims to arbitrary and absolute power advanced by the kings of the
period. Thus it was that the ecclesiastical contest speedily developed
into a political conflict, in which arguments were of more importance
than arms, inasmuch as argument and conviction supplied the real
motive power. As we have seen, and will see further in the sequel, in
petitions and protestations, in speeches and sermons, and pamphlets,
the Covenanters urged their claims, and clearly vindicated their
proceedings at every stage of the conflict, not only by many texts of
Scripture, but also by appeals to principles which are now recognised
as political axioms. The people listened intently to all this, and read
and discussed amongst themselves the merits of the various points of
the controversy. Thus every intelligent man became a keen theologian
and a politician, ready to argue with all comers any point, either of
divinity or of public policy, or the limits of the power of kings. For
a century the people had been battling for their rights; while they
were also being well trained in political and moral principles. The
lesson was well taught and retained in the internal consciousness, for
the impression stamped upon the national mind during the Covenanting
struggle has continued as a political characteristic of Scotsmen to
the present day. This was the chief contribution of the seventeenth
century to the civilisation of Scotland. The historian, however, in
stating this, may not justify all the proceedings and actions of the
Covenanters, for it is clear that they often erred in the application
of their principles to practice; still they contributed much to the
political and moral progress of the people.