_Charles II. The Kingdom under Cromwell._
PARLIAMENT was sitting when the intelligence of the King’s execution
reached Scotland, and on the 5th of February, 1649, his eldest son
was proclaimed King of Scotland, under the title of Charles II. The
national sentiment of the Scots was decidedly in favour of monarchical
government; their Covenants recognised it, and they had no idea of
establishing a republic. They had no special objections to kingly
authority, when it was exercised according to what they conceived to be
the Word of God and the constitution of the Kingdom; while the English
Independents and sectaries directly discarded both king and monarchy,
which was only one among many points of difference between them and the
Covenanters.
Two days after the proclamation of Charles II., the Estates
emphatically expressed the sentiment and feeling of the nation, by
passing an Act, which declared that, before this young prince or any
of his successors should be admitted to the exercise of the kingly
power, he should sign and swear the National Covenant, and the Solemn
League and Covenant; that he should for himself and his successors,
consent to the acts of parliament enjoining these Covenants, and fully
establishing Presbyterianism, the Directory of Worship, the Confession
of Faith, and the Catechisms; that he should observe these in his
own family; and that he should never oppose or attempt to change
any of them. Further, before being admitted to the exercise of his
royal functions, he should dismiss and relinquish all counsel of those
opposed to religion and to the Covenants; and give satisfaction to the
Parliament of Scotland in whatever else should be found requisite for
settling a lasting peace, preserving the union between the kingdoms,
or for the good of the crown, and his own honour and happiness; and
consent that all civil matters should be settled by the parliament of
the kingdom, and ecclesiastical matters by the General Assembly. This
parliament, on the 9th of March, passed an act abolishing patronage, on
the ground that it was unwarranted in Scripture, and merely introduced
in times of ignorance and superstition; that it was an evil and a
bondage, under which the Lord’s people and ministers of Scotland had
long groaned. Of this act Balfour says:――“The parliament passed a
most strange act this month, abolishing the patronages of kirks, which
pertained to laymen ever since Christianity was planted in Scotland.
The Earl of Buccleuch and some others protested against this, as
altogether derogatory to the just rights of the nobility and gentry
of the kingdom of Scotland, and so departed out of the house. But it
was carried.... Johnston and the Kirk’s minions durst not do otherwise,
lest the leaders of the Church should desert them, and leave them to
stand on their own feet, which without the Church none of them could
well do.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages
363‒364, 411‒413. _Annals of Scotland_, Volume III., page
391.
On the 6th of March, 1649, the Estates commissioned the Earl of
Cassillis and others to proceed to the young king in Holland, and offer
him the Crown on the conditions indicated in the above paragraph. They
were admitted to an interview with the prince on the 27th of March,
and attempts were made to treat. They tried to persuade him to sign
the Covenants, insisting that this would gain for him the support of
the Scots and the whole Presbyterian party. Many papers passed between
the King and the Scotch commissioners, but Charles declined to commit
himself, and no definite conclusions were arrived at. The commissioners
returned to Scotland, and reported their proceedings to the Estates on
the 14th of June, which were all approved.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 400,
451‒459; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages
84‒90, 508‒521.
By the orders of the Committee of Estates the Marquis of Huntly
was captured in December, 1647, and imprisoned in Edinburgh. On the
16th of March, 1649, he was brought to trial for treason. Argyle his
brother-in-law, was the leading man in the Government at the time. Yet
Huntly was convicted, condemned, and on the 22nd of March, beheaded.
The General Assembly met at Edinburgh, on the 7th of July, ♦1646,
and passed some remarkable acts. It was enacted that all who had
been in any way concerned with the late Engagement, should be deemed
malignants, and must submit either to the discipline of the Church,
or to excommunication, and that the army and the parliament should
be thoroughly purged of such. For the instruction of the people the
Assembly issued this statement:――“1. That as magistrates and their
power are ordained of God, so are they, in the exercise thereof, not
to walk according to their own will, but according to the law of equity
and righteousness, as being the ministers of God, for the safety of
His people. Therefore, a boundless and unlimited power is not to be
acknowledged in any king or magistrate, neither is our king to be
admitted to the exercise of his authority, as long as he refuses to
walk in the administration of the same, according to this rule, and the
established laws of the kingdom. 2. That there is a mutual obligation
and stipulation between the king and his people, for the performance
of mutual and reciprocal duties. 3. That arbitrary government, and
unlimited power, are the fountains of all corruption in the Church
and in the State. 4. That it is no new thing for kingdoms to preserve
themselves from ruin by putting restraint upon the exercise of the
power and government of those who have refused to grant the things
that were necessary for the good of religion, and the safety of the
people.”¹ This Assembly passed an act on the election of ministers,
intended to carry out the act abolishing patronage. When a vacancy
occurred, the kirk-session of the parish were to elect a minister, and
if this person was accepted by the congregation, the presbytery were to
proceed and try his qualifications, and if he was found to be properly
qualified, then to admit him to his office. When a majority of the
congregation dissented from the choice of the session, then the matter
was to be brought before the presbytery, who were to judge of it; and
if they found reasonable ground of dissent, they were to appoint a new
election. If the dissent came from a mere minority of the congregation,
it was not to be sustained, except on sufficient reasons shown to the
presbytery. But, when the congregation were disaffected or malignant,
the presbytery was to appoint a minister for them. There was a long
debate on this act in the Assembly. Calderwood maintained that,
according to the Second Book of Discipline, the election should belong
to the presbytery, and that the people had only the right to dissent
for reasons to be judged by the presbytery.
♦ “1146” replaced with probably “1648”
¹ Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_.
It appears that Montrose was urged by the young prince Charles II.,
to again strike a blow for the cause of royalty. By his efforts and
enthusiasm Montrose managed to assemble a band of Danes and Germans,
and Scottish exiles, and early in the spring of 1650 sailed from the
Elbe for the Orkneys. When he reached Orkney, it was reported that
his force numbered seven hundred men, and fifteen hundred stand of
arms. He remained for some time in the Orkneys, and endeavoured to
increase his army by forced levies; but there was no enthusiasm for
Charles II. amongst the Orcadians, and what Montrose gained in numbers,
added nothing to his strength, as men forced into service under such
circumstances, could not be relied upon. He landed in Caithness and
raised the King’s standard; but some of the inhabitants fled on his
approach, and none of them joined his ranks. He issued a proclamation
in his Majesty’s name, and promised pardon to all who had been deluded
by the ruling party in Scotland; still the people of the North declined
to rally round him. A strong army under Leslie was sent against him.
But only a small advance detachment under Colonel Strachan, came upon
Montrose. The encounter took place at Invercharron on the northern
skirt of Ross-shire. Montrose was defeated, and the greater part of his
men slain and taken prisoners, but he escaped himself. He wandered in
the country for several days, and suffered much from hunger and cold.
He was captured by Macleod of Assynt, and conveyed to Edinburgh. His
sentence had been before passed by Parliament, when he was condemned
for treason, and was simply brought up to receive it. He was executed
on 21st May, 1650, at Edinburgh. It is impossible not to feel for
the hard fate of Montrose, although he was a renegade; still he had
brilliant and admirable characteristics. He had striking abilities
and resource as a military leader, and his mastery of tactics when
the moment for action came, was supreme. But, as a politician or a
statesman he was a mere cipher. He had enthusiasm; yet the genuineness
of his moral convictions and his honour might be questioned. He showed
no real capacity to appreciate the thought, the feeling, and the
convictions of the great majority of his countrymen.
Early in the spring of 1650, treating with the King was resumed at
Breda. The conditions were the same as before; but it was thought that
circumstances were now more favourable, as all hope of assistance from
Ireland had been blasted by the victories of Cromwell; and the youthful
prince had begun to think of consenting to the proposals of the
Covenanters. After some treating the King agreed to the propositions of
the Scots, then embarked for the home of his ancestors, and arrived at
the mouth of the Spey on the 23rd of June. There he signed the Covenant,
and having landed next day, he proceeded southwards. The Scots had
now got a king, and as they had resolved that he should conform to
their principles and their modes of life, there were every morning
and evening lectures, from which the prince was never permitted to be
absent.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages
513‒514, 516, 535‒536; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume IV., pages
68, 73.
Burnet says:――“The King wrought himself into as grave a deportment
as he could: he heard many prayers and sermons, some of great length.
I remember on one fast day there were six sermons preached without
intermission. I was there myself, and not a little weary of so tedious
a service. The King was not allowed so much as a walk abroad on Sundays;
and if at any time there had been any gaiety at court, such as dancing
or playing cards, he was severely reproved. This was managed with so
much rigour and so little discretion, that it contributed not a little
to beget in him an aversion to all sort of strictness in religion.”¹
¹ _History of his Own Time_, Volume I., pages 91‒92.
Carlyle has some curious remarks on the Covenant. “The meaning of the
Scotch Covenant was, that God’s Divine Law of the Bible should be put
in practice in these nations; verily it, and not the four surplices at
Allhallowtide, or any formula of cloth or sheepskin here or elsewhere
which merely pretended to be it: but then the Covenant says expressly,
there is to be a Stuart King in the business: we cannot do without
our Stuart King. Given a Divine Law of the Bible on the one hand,
and a Stuart King, Charles First or Charles Second, on the other:
alas, did history ever present a more irreducible case of equations
in this world? I pity the poor Scotch pedant governors; still more the
poor Scotch people who had no other to follow. Nay, as for that, the
people did get through in the end, such was their indomitable pious
consistency, and other worth and fortune: and presbytery became a fact
among them, to the whole length possible for it, not without endless
results. But for the poor governors this irreducible case proved, as it
were, fatal. They have never since, if we look narrowly at it, governed
Scotland, or even well known that they were to attempt governing it.
Once they lay on Dunse Hill, each earl with his regiment of tenants
round him, for Christ’s Crown and Covenant; and never since had they
any whole national act which it was given them to do. Growing desperate
of Christ’s Crown and Covenant, they in the next generation, when our
Annus Mirabilis arrived, hurried up to court, looking out for their
crowns and covenants; deserted Scotland and her cause somewhat basely;
took to booing and booing for causes of their own, unhappy mortals;
――and Scotland, and all causes that were Scotland’s have had to go
very much without them ever since. Which is a very fatal issue indeed,
as I reckon;――and the time for the settlement of accounts about it,
which will not fail always, and seems now fast drawing nigh, looks very
ominous to me....
“But leaving all that, the poor Scotch governors, we remark, in that
old crisis of theirs, have come upon the desperate expedient of getting
Charles the Second to adopt the Covenant the best he can. Whereby
our parchment formula is indeed served; but the divine fact has gone
terribly to the wall. The Scotch governors think otherwise. By treaties
at Jersey, treaties at Breda, they and the hard law of want together
have constrained this poor young Stuart to their detested Covenant, as
the Frenchman said, they have compelled him to adopt it voluntarily.
A fearful crime, thinks Oliver, and think me. How dare you exact such
mummery under high heaven? exclaims he. You will prosecute malignants;
and with the aid of some poor varnish, transparent even to yourselves,
you adopt into your bosom the chief malignant. My soul come not into
your secret; mine honour be not united unto you.”¹
¹ _Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches_, Volume II., pages 4‒5.
Many declarations and papers passed between the English and the Scotch
governments at this time, and between Cromwell and the Covenanters.
This is from a letter of Cromwell’s to the commission of the Church of
Scotland, the 3rd of August, 1650:――“Your own guilt is too much for you
to bear: bring not, therefore, upon yourselves the blood of innocent
men――deceived with pretences of King and Covenant――from whose eyes you
hide a better knowledge. I am persuaded that divers of you, who lead
the people, have laboured to build yourselves in these things; wherein
you have censured others ‘upon the Word of God.’ Is it, therefore,
infallibly agreeable to the Word of God, all that you say? I beseech
you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Precept may be upon precept, line upon line, and yet the Word of the
Lord may be to some a word of judgment: that they may fall backward
and be broken, and be snared and be taken.... There may be a Covenant
made with Death and Hell. I will not say yours was so. But judge if
such things have a politic aim: to avoid the overflowing scourge, or
to accomplish worldly interests? And if therein we have confederated
with wicked and cruel men, and have respect for them, or otherwise
have drawn them into association with us, whether this be a Covenant of
God, and spiritual. Bethink yourselves, we hope we do. I pray you read
the twenty-eighth of Isaiah, from the fifth to the fifteenth verse.
And do not scorn to know that it is the spirit that quickens and
gives life. The Lord give you and us understanding to do that which
is well-pleasing in His sight.”¹
¹ _Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches_, Volume, II., pages 20‒21.
The Scots were bitterly opposed to the party then at the head of the
Commonwealth in England, while that party could not afford to remain
passive observers of the movement in behalf of the young King in
Scotland. Accordingly, Cromwell and his army entered Scotland in July,
1650, and advanced to the vicinity of Edinburgh, but he was unable to
take it, as it was well covered by the Scottish army. He then retired
to Dunbar, where a battle was fought on the 3rd of September, in which
the Covenanters were completely defeated. Shortly after, Cromwell took
possession of Edinburgh, and, by the beginning of October, was master
of the south-eastern counties of the kingdom. Meantime the Scots had
become more and more divided among themselves, and there had sprung
up, in the heat of the conflict, several minute differences of opinion
and sentiment on the burning questions of the time, which each party
asserted and maintained with characteristic determination. There were
now three distinct parties in Scotland. First, the Government party
with the Marquis of Argyle at its head, consisting of the Committee
of Estates, and the Commission of the General Assembly so far as it
concurred with the government. The body of the clergy who supported
the government and the resolutions of parliament and the commission of
the Church, were called the Resolutioners. They supported the efforts
of the government to defend the kingdom and a Covenanted king by all
available means. Then secondly, there was the more strict and extreme
party, fully resolved for the Covenant, and firmly opposed to all
double-dealing in this solemn matter. They maintained that, though the
King had granted everything and signed the papers placed before him,
yet on his own part this was a mere sham, since he had shown no real
indications of any change. The adherents of this section were called
“Protesters.” The unhappy breach among the presbyterians subsequently
became very bitter and disastrous. Thirdly, apart from both the purely
presbyterian parties, there was the extreme and rather mixed royalist
party, which numbered in its ranks the Earls of Athole and Seaforth;
these were not all open enemies of the Covenant, nor real malignants.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages
544‒546, _et seq._; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume IV., pages
95‒111, 135‒160, 174, 178, _et seq._; _Records of the Church
of Scotland_.
In the midst of all this distraction, the King was crowned at Scone on
the 1st of January, 1651, when he again swore to maintain the National
Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. Mr. Douglas, one of the
ministers of Edinburgh, delivered the coronation sermon, and reminded
the young prince of the iniquity of some of his royal ancestors,
warning him that if he followed their example, his house would soon
become desolate.¹
¹ _The Form and Order of the King’s Coronation_, printed at
Aberdeen, 1651.
As the Scots were unable to drive back the English army, they resolved
on a raid across the Border. Charles accompanied the Scottish army into
England, but Cromwell with a part of his force followed him. A battle
ensued at Worcester, on the 3rd of September, 1651, when the royalists
were defeated. The King escaped and fled to the continent.
After this, General Monk was entrusted with the task of the reduction
of Scotland, and he accomplished it more thoroughly than Edward I.
had done. On the 28th of August, 1651, the Committee of Estates were
surprised and captured at Alyth in Angus, along with five of the
members of the Commission of the General Assembly, who were all sent
prisoners to England. The people of the Lowlands then submitted to
the English army, but some resistance continued to be offered by the
royalists in the Highlands. They too, however, were shortly subdued,
and the country was reduced to order.
The General Assembly, which met at Edinburgh in July, 1653, was quietly
dispersed by a company of English soldiers, and the members commanded
not to meet again. Baillie tells this in his usual graphic style:
――“Colonel Cotteral beset the Church with some files of musketeers and
a troop of horse, and himself entered the Assembly house, and inquired
if we sat there by the authority of the parliament of the Commonwealth
of England, or of the Commander-in-chief of the English forces, or of
the English Judges in Scotland? The moderator replied that we were an
ecclesiastical synod, a spiritual court of Jesus Christ, which meddled
not with any civil affairs, that our authority was from God, and
established by the laws of the land yet standing unrepealed, that by
the Solemn League and Covenant, the most of the English army stood
obliged to defend our General Assembly. When some speeches of this kind
had passed, the colonel told us that his orders were to dissolve us;
whereupon he commanded all of us to follow him, else he would drag us
out of the room. When we had entered a protestation of this unheard
of and unexampled violence, we did rise and follow him; he led us all
through the streets a mile out of the town, encompassing us with foot
soldiers and horsemen, all the people gazing and mourning as at the
saddest spectacle they had ever seen. When he had led us a mile without
the town, he then declared what farther he had in commission, that we
should not dare to meet again above three in number, and that by eight
to-morrow evening, we should depart from the town, under the penalty
of being guilty of breaking the public peace, and the following day,
by sound of trumpet, we were commanded off the town under the pain of
immediate imprisonment. Thus our General Assembly, the glory and the
strength of our Church upon earth, is, by your soldiery, crushed and
trod under foot, without the least provocation from us, at this time,
either in word or deed.”¹ But the forms of presbyterianism were not
farther interfered with; and the synods, the presbyteries and the
sessions were permitted to hold their meetings, only there were no
General Assemblies.
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages 225‒226.
The dissension between the Resolutioners and the Protesters continued
throughout the Commonwealth. An attempt was made in 1655 to form an
agreement between the two parties, but it failed. Subsequently both
parties represented their cause to Cromwell, but neither of them
gained any important advantage from this, and the disputes between them
became bitter. No religious persecution was permitted in Scotland in
Cromwell’s reign, the Church being deprived of its power of inflicting
civil penalties.
After the nation was subdued, the government of the Commonwealth was
disposed to treat Scotland justly, according to its own view of the
necessities of the case and the circumstances. The aim of Cromwell
and his associates, so far as can be seen, was to amalgamate the
two nations into one republic. The Protector made a bold attempt to
extinguish the feudal powers of the nobles throughout Scotland. He
placed twenty-eight fortresses in the kingdom, and kept an army varying
from about seven to nine thousand men in the country. The taxes imposed
to support this force pressed rather hard upon the Scots; but then
peace and security reigned, which was a boon not to be lightly esteemed.
The most successful part of the incorporating scheme was that
which established free trade between the two countries. As it was
enacted――“that all customs, excise, and other imposts for goods
transported from England to Scotland, and from Scotland to England,
by sea or by land, are and shall be so far taken off and discharged,
as that all goods for the future shall pass as free, and with like
privileges and with like charges and burdens, from England to Scotland,
and from Scotland to England, as goods passing from port to port, or
from place to place, in England; and that all goods shall and may pass
between Scotland and any other part of this Commonwealth or dominions
thereof with the like privileges, freedom, and charges as such goods do
and shall pass between England and the said parts and dominions.”¹ This
was a great advantage to the Scots.
¹ Bruce’s _Report on the Union_.
When the army had extinguished all resistance, Cromwell placed the
civil administration of Scotland in the hands of a council of eight
or nine men, most of whom were Englishmen,¹ sitting in Edinburgh. The
powers of this council embraced the revenue, the appointment of the
inferior judges and justices of the peace, and authorised the ministers
to draw their stipends, a kind of patronage which was extremely
offensive to many of the clergy. The police of the kingdom was
generally entrusted to the military authorities, and was efficiently
executed.
¹ In July, 1655, the Council consisted of eight members.
The Court of Session was superseded by a supreme commission of justice,
consisting of seven judges, four English and three Scotch. This court
had to deal with a great change in the laws already indicated, the
abolition of the feudal system; and the commutation and adjustment
of the many entangled interests and obligations thence arising. A
collection of their decisions is preserved, and they are marked by good
common-sense and much careful labour.¹ Baillie, under the year 1655,
says:――“The kingdom was suffering for want of justice, for we have no
baron courts; our sheriffs have little skill, for common being English
soldiers; our Lords of Session, a few Englishmen, unexperienced with
our law, and who, this twelvemonth, has done little or nothing; great
is our suffering through want of that court. After long neglect of us
as no nation, at last a Supreme Council of State, with power in all
things, is come down, of six or seven English soldiers and two of our
complying gentlemen, Colonel Lockhart and Colonel Swinton. We expect
little good from them; but if an heavy excise, as is said, be added
to our maintenance, and the paying of all the garrisons lie on us, our
condition will be insupportable; yet be what it will, it must be borne,
we have deserved it.”
¹ _The Decisions of the English Judges during the Usurpation._
Another body of seven men, half of them English, were constituted
trustees of forfeited and sequestrated estates, by an ordinance in
1654. Their duties were to look after the rents and the revenues of
the many Scottish nobles and lairds whose estates had been seized by
the government, for offences arising out of the conquest. They were
instructed to pay creditors, to give allowances to the wives, the
widows, and the children of the original owners of the estates.¹
Speaking of the state of Scotland in 1656, Baillie says:――“Our state
is in a very silent condition: strong garrisons over all the land, and
a great army, both of horse and foot, for which there is no service
at all. Our nobles lying in prisons, and under forfeitures or debts,
private or public, are for the most part either broken or breaking.”
¹ _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages 388‒389, 317.
But the Scots were not all satisfied with Cromwell’s rule, though
quietness and order were maintained in the kingdom by the strong arm.
In the beginning of the year 1658, the Protector expressed his own
opinion of the Scots thus:――“And hath Scotland been long settled? Have
not they a like sense of poverty? I speak plainly. In good earnest,
I do think the Scotch nation have been under as great a suffering,
in point of livelihood and subsistence outwardly, as any people I
have yet named to you. I do think truly they are a very ruined nation.
And yet in a way, I have spoken with some gentlemen come from thence,
hopeful enough; it hath pleased to give that plentiful encouragement
to the meaner sort in Scotland.... The meaner sort in Scotland live as
well, and are likely to come into as thriving a condition under your
government, as when they were under their own great Lords, who made
them work for their living no better than the peasants of France.
I am loth to speak anything which may reflect upon that nation; but
the middle sort of people do grow up there into such substance as
makes their lives comfortable, if not better than they were before.”¹
Referring to the year 1656, Baillie said:――“The truth is, money
was never so scarce here, and growing daily scarcer, and yet it is
thought this parliament in September, 1656, is summoned mainly for new
taxations. What England may bear, to whom the Protector remitted the
half of the monthly maintenance of one hundred and twenty thousand
pounds sterling, I know not; but Scotland, whose burden has been
tripled, besides the fines, forfeitures, debts, and other miseries,
seems unable to bear what lies on her already.” Of Glasgow at this time,
he says:――“Our people have much more trade in comparison than any other
town; their buildings increase strangely both for number and fairness:
it is more than doubled in our time.” Finally, in regard to the kingdom
in 1658:――“In our state all is exceedingly quiet. A great army, in a
multitude of garrisons, bides above our heads, and deep poverty keeps
all ranks exceedingly under; the taxes of all kinds are so great, the
trade so little, that it is a marvel if extreme scarcity of money end
not, ere long, in some mischief.”²
¹ Carlyle’s _Letters and Speeches of Cromwell_, Volume II.,
pages 638‒639.
² Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages 318,
319, 357.
Owing to the toleration of religious opinions under the Commonwealth,
various new sects appeared in Scotland, among whom the Quakers were
the most remarkable. In the year 1656, Baillie remarks that “This sect
of Quakers is likely to prove troublesome: they increase much among
the English both in England and in Ireland. They in a furious way cry
down both ministry and magistracy; some of them seem actually possessed
with a devil, their fury, their irrational passions, and their
bodily convulsions are so great. Lieutenant Osburne, one of our first
apostates to the English, is an open leader to them in the streets of
Edinburgh, without any punishment. Several in Clydesdale, of the most
zealous Remonstrant yeomen, have turned so; and their increase is
feared, which is the just recompense of admitting the beginnings of
errors.”¹ Two years later, he says, they were increasing and making
some trouble in several places in Scotland. Another contemporary
says:――“Some of them walked through the streets, all naked save their
shirts, crying――This is the way, walk ye in it!” Others cried out,
“That the day of salvation is at hand; draw near to the Lord, for the
sword of the Lord is drawn, and will not be put up till the enemies
of the Lord be destroyed.” In England, “there was immense difficulty
with this new sect, from the fact that they had not settled down into
mere local groups of individuals, asking toleration for themselves,
but were still in open war with all other sects, all forms of ministry,
and prosecuted the war everywhere by itinerant propagandism. George
Fox himself and the best of his followers seem by this time, indeed, to
have given up the method of actually interrupting the regular service
in the steeple-houses in order to preach Quakerism, but they were
constantly tending to the steeple-houses for the purpose of prophesying
there, as was the custom in country places, after the regular service
was over. Thus, as well as by their conflicts with parsons of every
sect wherever they met them, and their rebukings of iniquity on
highways and in market-places, not to speak of their obstinate refusals
to pay tithes in their own parishes, they were continually getting into
the hands of justices of the peace and the assize judges.”²
¹ _Ibid._, Volume III., page 323.
² Nicoll’s _Diary_; Dr. Masson’s _Life of John Milton: Narrated
in connection with the History of His Time_, Volume V., page
66.
Regarded from a religious standpoint, the Covenanting movement directly
tended to intensify the religious feeling and habits of the people. The
opinions and doctrines which were then formulated anew, took deep root
in the heart of the nation; the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster
divines became the text-book of the religious doctrines of the people,
and it has exercised a vast influence over their moral and mental
character. But during the period in question there was a lamentable
absence of the loving and tolerant spirit which should characterise the
Christian and moral life.
On the 3rd of September, 1658, Cromwell died. Although the supreme
power which he had won by his energy and wisdom passed on to his son
Richard, this man was unequal for the task imposed upon him, and in
a few months retired into private life. The government of the three
kingdoms fell into the hands of the leaders of the armies, and they
then began a scramble for the summit of power; but Oliver’s mantle
had not descended upon any of them. So the traditions and sentiments
associated with the glories of the throne and the monarchy, were soon
in the ascendant. General Monk was at the head of the army in Scotland,
and having collected his forces, he carefully prepared to march into
England. He called a meeting of the chief men among the Scots, and
advised them to preserve the internal peace of the kingdom; and they
aided him with a sum of money. In November, 1659, he began his march
southward, and entered England in the beginning of 1660. After various
moves, Monk declared in favour of a free parliament, which met in March,
and resolved to recall the King. And so Charles II. entered London on
the 29th of May, amid the shouts and applause of the people.