Royalty was now a thing of the past; it had been abolished in England.
He who had perished on the scaffold came to be called plain Charles
Stuart. His son could be designated by no other name. Royal statues
were pulled down. Royal arms were no longer allowed in churches. But
loyalty, as a sentiment, arose in greater strength than ever after the
execution of the King. To Episcopalians, and to some Presbyterians
also, Charles appeared a martyr, the victim of a republican faction,
who were proceeding to destroy the Church after having already battered
down the throne. Both parties shuddered at the idea of being ruled by
men whose hands were red with royal blood. Recollections of the 30th of
January were indelible. What Ussher and Philip Henry had seen, burned
itself into their memories, and the tragedy, down to the minutest
particular, with superadded circumstances of brutality, would form a
staple of conversation in many a country walk, and by many an English
fireside, for months and years afterwards.
[Sidenote: 1649, February.]
A touching expression of Royalist sympathy occurs in the parish
register of Woodford, in the county of Essex, where there is recorded
a collection for the benefit of Charles' chaplains and servants,
about a year after his death. Their claims were urged in a petition
which stated that the King's domestics, to the number of forty, were
in great distress, and that their means of support out of his revenues
were still detained, so that they could in nowise maintain either
themselves, their wives, or their families, and therefore they sought
the charity of all good Christians.[23]
[Sidenote: _Scotch Treaty with Charles._]
Charles Stuart was in Holland at the time of his father's execution.
The Scotch estates, as early as the 5th of February, shewed their
loyalty to the Stuarts by proclaiming the Prince of Wales to be their
King. Robert Baillie here again comes to our assistance, and we find
him writing in February, 1649, to his cousin Spang, then sojourning at
the Hague, in the following terms:--
"We have sent the bearer (Sir Joseph Douglas), a worthy gentleman,
to signify so much to his Majesty, at the Hague; we purpose speedily
to send an honourable commission from all estates. The dangers and
difficulties wherewith both his Majesty and all his kingdoms at this
time are involved are exceeding great and many. The first necessary
and prime one (as all here, without exception, conceive), doth put
his Majesty and his people both, in a hopeful proceeding, and his
Majesty's joining with us in the national Covenant, subscribed by his
grandfather King James, and the Solemn League and Covenant wherein all
the well-affected of the three kingdoms are entered, and must live and
die in, upon all hazards. If his Majesty may be moved to join with
us in this one point, he will have all Scotland ready to sacrifice
their lives for his service; if he refuse, or shift this duty, his
best and most useful friends, both here and elsewhere, will be cast
into inextricable labyrinths, we fear, for the ruin of us all."[24] In
these sentences of Baillie's letter, which crossed the winter's sea in
Sir Joseph Douglas' despatch box, side by side with a more important
document, we find the key-note struck of all the diplomacy then going
on between the King and the Scotch. Spang, soon after receiving the
letter, is found busy with endeavours to promote the accomplishment of
the object designed by his fellow-countrymen. Writing at once to his
cousin to express sympathy in his horror at Charles' execution--which
Dutch ministers bewailed in sermons from chosen texts--and to shew
his exultation at the thought of what his friends in Scotland had
accomplished, this resident at the Hague informs us that he had
obtained an interview with the Prince of Orange,--the young man, who,
it will be recollected, was married at Whitehall in 1641. The writer
represents him as concerned for the Protestant religion, and says
he heard him express the opinion that Charles might be brought to
subscribe that Covenant which concerned Scotland alone, but he was not
up to the mark in reference to the other, betwixt Scotland and England.
Earnestly did the diplomatist argue the point, but with little avail.
When his Highness pressed home the question, whether Scotland, divided
herself, were really able to do anything of moment since the ruling
party in that country was too weak to suppress its enemies; Spang told
the Prince that the condition of the Presbyterians, in Great Britain
and Ireland, was not so mean but that the King, if he would cheerfully
join himself to them, as _caput et vindex fœderis_, would be sure of
success. At the close of the letter containing this report, the writer
added an earnest exhortation to his cousin to inform the reverend
brethren of his communion how much the fame of rigidity was likely
to endanger the fame of the kirk, and make Presbyterian government
hateful. He said plainly that there could be no safety, if the Scotch
did not pack up their quarrels among themselves.[25]
[Sidenote: 1649, March.]
On Thursday, the 22nd of March, "at night, the Lord brought" all the
commissioners "safe to Rotterdam." Baillie was one of them, being now
engaged in a very different business from that which took him to London
in the year 1640,--yet did he act herein in a way as true as ever to
his cause and to himself, being intent still upon the prosperity of
Presbyterianism, the enforcement of the Covenant, and the glory of God.
He and his brother commissioners proceeded to Delf, and whilst resting
there on the Sabbath, preached and conducted worship. After putting
their papers in order, they hastened to the Hague, and were in the
royal presence on the following day.
Baillie furnishes a copy of his speech to Charles, spoken in the King's
bedchamber, upon Tuesday, March the 27th, 1649, at three o'clock in
the afternoon. In the name of the Church of Scotland, the clerical
Commissioner expressed much grief for his Majesty's afflictions, and
great joy on his accession to the throne, together with deep sorrow for
the recent execrable parricide, which the great Judge of the world,
he was persuaded, would avenge. Prayers followed this address to the
new King, in which the minister fervently implored that the clouds of
present danger might fly away, and that more religion and piety might
be seen in his Majesty's days than in those of his most prosperous
ancestors. The deputation then handed to the sovereign a letter from
the Church of Scotland.
[Sidenote: _Royalist Intrigues._]
Charles, during this interview, made a favourable impression on
his visitors, as indeed he did on most people. "His Majesty," says
Baillie,[26] "is of a very sweet and courteous disposition. We hope
he is not so far rooted in any principles contrary to us, but that,
by God's blessing on our friends' labours, he may be gotten to do us
reason, whatsoever our fears be for the present. There is a very evil
generation both of English and Scotch here, who vomit out all their
evil humour against all our proceedings." Again the writer breaks
out in terms of admiration respecting the King. "He is one of the
most gentle, innocent, well-inclined princes, so far as yet appears,
that lives in the world,--a trim person, and of a manly carriage,
understands pretty well, speaks not much--would to God he were amongst
us."
When the Scotch had left Holland, the Hague became a centre of
intrigues for the overthrow of the English Commonwealth and the
restoration of the Stuarts. Except so far as they illustrate the state
of religious parties, we have here little to do with those intrigues.
[Sidenote: 1650, March.]
Certain papers, still in existence, disclose some of the secrets of the
Court in Holland during the spring and summer of 1650. Charles then, as
ever, in his exile, pursued one line of policy, which was, by honest
or dishonest means to recover the crown of Great Britain. Without any
ambition like his father, to be in repute as a diplomatist, and wholly
lacking the caution and prudence requisite for such a character, he
nevertheless eagerly listened to whatever his councillors proposed in
reference to his restoration, and at times aided their endeavours after
that object by his nimble wit and his unblushing falsehood.
As he sat in his little cabinet with a very scantily attended Council
Board, a paper, dated the 5th of March, 1650, came before him, stating
what appeared to be the wishes and views of certain Presbyterians.
"They desired that his Majesty would declare himself to his people,
that they might raise a satisfaction from it to their friends.
"That his Majesty would please to send some encouragement to such of
their clergy friends, as yet, in pulpits and elsewhere, dared publicly
to hold up his Majesty's rights and titles.
"To both which desires they seem satisfied, saving they conceive they
might have made an advantage of it too for that purpose, if his Majesty
had touched also, in particular, upon religion in his declaration.
"That they will not press for the Covenant in England, and will
endeavour to moderate the Scots in their desires; beseeching withal,
that the King will go as far as he can for their satisfaction, that he
may have a greater service by their conjunction.
"That they will rest satisfied with such a settlement in Church and
State as a future Parliament--together with such a synod as that
Parliament shall approve of--shall make.
[Sidenote: _Royalist Intrigues._]
"That though many particular persons of their party are clearly
satisfied with the King and his intentions, yet their single
endeavours, without taking more of their party along with them, will
signify little for his service; and therefore to bring them in, which
is their desire, the persons already satisfied are necessitated to
carry themselves more cautiously towards the rest; in compliance with
them, for fear of losing them through factious insinuations, which
their party is not free from.
"That amongst their party, divers (and especially in London) wealthy
persons hanker so much after the Scots, that the rest, not so much
Scotified, use to call them bigots or zealots, and labour to break off
that dependency as the greatest impediment to their ready conjunction
for his Majesty's service, in case the Scots continue unreasonable in
their desires.
"That there is yet a fear amongst their party generally that the King's
party will not be reconciled to them; and till that fear can be removed
it concerns them, in order to their own security, to move with such
circumspection, and preserve such strength in themselves as may balance
with the King's party."[27]
This paper exhibits the English Presbyterians as earnestly desiring
the accession of Charles. It indicates that there were differences of
opinions between the Scotch and themselves in relation to the Covenant,
and that amongst the latter a much higher degree of confidence was
entertained by some than by others respecting the prince's character
and intentions; whilst it also shews that sympathy with the Scotch was
cherished by the English in very unequal measures, and that those who
most nearly coincided in the views of their northern brethren were the
rich Presbyterians of the metropolis.
A second paper of rough notes, endorsed as received on the 18th of
March, containing suggestions from Roman Catholics in England, came
under consideration.
[Sidenote: 1650, April.]
Sir Nicholas Crispe and many other friends tendered their allegiance
and offered their services to his Majesty. They approved of his
constancy to the Marquis of Montrose, and preferred a union to be
formed with him rather than with the contrary faction, if a division
of parties were inevitable. They proceeded to beseech his Majesty to
have great care in whom he placed confidence, inasmuch as they feared
he had some ministers about him who could not be trusted, although they
declined to name them. They said that all possible dispatch ought to be
used; and they referred to him the question what should be done with
his Majesty's Catholic subjects. "In their opinion," to use their own
words, "they conceive it very necessary that they have some private
assurance from him of a future liberty of conscience, if God shall
restore him, and the like to some Catholic prince in their behalf.
They proposed some connivance to have been allowed for taking the
engagement, but that will be now answered too late, the day being past,
as to the banishment, though the last day given be not till the 14th of
April--after which day all are outlawed who shall not take it. If the
King order any thing herein, then to give some assurance of it under
his hand for their better satisfaction who must necessarily take it for
their preservation in order to his service." It was proposed that there
should be a descent made on the Cornish coast; and after an assurance
from the "Lords Shrewsbury, Montague, and all other Catholic nobility
and gentry," that they faithfully retained their allegiance, there
follows an expression of desire for a mitigation of the severity of the
laws against them, should God restore him to the throne, for which they
were prepared to hazard fortune and life.
[Sidenote: _Royalist Intrigues._]
The notes of Charles' reply, dated the 8th of April, are also in
existence. Amongst other things he states, "As for the Catholics, all
care will be taken to give them ease and liberty of conscience. As to
the engagement, what liberty their consciences shall give them to do,
to preserve themselves for the King's service, their continuing loyal
will render acceptable to the King, who will be sure to recompense
their merit."[28]
Communications from Papists were evidently far more agreeable than any
which came from a Presbyterian quarter. They received a prompt reply,
and both his Majesty and his correspondents shewed themselves perfectly
willing to adopt jesuitical practices, which, from all we know of the
Presbyterians, we are perfectly sure they would have scorned; to take
the Engagement with the intention of breaking it was a course perfectly
approved by the Prince and his friends. The end sanctified the means.
[Sidenote: 1650, May.]
A third paper, bearing date May the 10th, contains information
respecting the English Republicans, which had been gathered from gossip
during a journey in this country by Colonel Keynes. An informant, he
says, assured him that "a friend of his who dined on Saturday last
with Sir Harry Vane the younger, Mr. Bailey, and Judge Thorpe, and was
one who had formerly been theirs, though now converted, but did still
comply with them, so feigned as not to make himself suspected, told
him for certain, that after dinner, being all four alone, they fell
into discourse concerning their present condition; that Sir H. Vane
said that they were in a far worse estate than ever yet they had been;
that all the world was and would be their enemies; that the Scots had
left them; their own army and generals were not to be trusted; that
the whole kingdom would rise and cut their throats upon the first good
occasion, and that they knew not any place to go unto to be safe."
The whole of the report is written in a sanguine spirit, and shews
how the Royalists buoyed up the King's hopes. And although such
conversations as are here retailed are utterly untrustworthy, yet it
is quite possible that Vane, as he saw the cause of pure republicanism
was on the decline, might express himself to his friends in terms of
despondency, not unlike those which are here represented.
There is also a fourth and earlier paper,[29] belonging to the month of
March, containing general suggestions submitted for the consideration
of Charles and his council.
"As for England," he is told, "the Independents are possessed of all
the forts and towns, the navy and treasures. The Presbyterian yet
holdeth a silent power by means of the Divines, and the interest of
some gentry and nobility, and especially in London and the great towns.
Their fortunes are yet unshaken (though threatened). Besides (by former
use when they held the power), they continue an intelligence which the
King's party cannot do, which may make them considerable, when they
shall be fit for his Majesty's reception.
[Sidenote: _Charles in Scotland._]
"Some are rigid for the _jus Divinum_ of Presbytery, but the greatest
part, weary of trouble and the rod that now hangeth over them, would
repent and serve his Majesty; some purely without fraud, others being
assured to be freed from their past facts, their livings and offices
preserved to them, their moneys laid out in church lands, &c., repaid.
"The principal heads look at Government, and manage all these under
people's interests to their own, which we conceive all that love his
Majesty should give way to, and laying aside all expectations of their
own, if these men may be able to do the work to let them receive the
thanks of it.
"For his Majesty's party in England, it is so poor, so disjointed, so
severely watched by both the other factions, that it is impossible for
them to do anything upon their own single score; but if his Majesty
could find an expedient to beget a good understanding betwixt his
party and the Presbyterians they might under their shadow rise again;
otherwise nothing but a foreign force can begin the work and justify
the endeavours and affections of his friends."
[Sidenote: 1650, August.]
These notes speak for themselves, and indicate the rumours,
expectations, and schemes which were reported to Charles, and the many
ways in which religion and politics had become mixed up together in
connexion with the efforts he was making to reach the throne of his
fathers.
[Sidenote: _Charles in Scotland._]
Charles at length decided upon throwing himself into the arms of the
Scotch. The demand to sign the Covenant, though it thoroughly disgusted
him in the first instance, obtained his consent after a year's delay.
Casting aside a last regard for truth, he passed through the form of
signing the document before he left the Dutch shores; that concession
having been persistently stipulated for by his new adherents. Having
reached Scotland on the 23rd of June, he was proclaimed King at the
High Cross of Edinburgh on the 11th of July following.
Faithful to the religious cause which they had espoused, the
Presbyterians shewed great care to separate it from the interests
of Royalism, whether considered by itself or in connexion with the
prelatical party, which had been the main defenders of the throne at
the beginning of the war. This appears from the following declaration,
dated West Kirk of Edinburgh, the 13th and 14th of August, 1650. "The
Commissioners of the General Assembly, considering that there may be
just ground of stumbling from the King's Majesty refusing to subscribe
and emit the declaration offered unto him by the Committee of Estate,
and Commissioners of the General Assembly--considering his former
carriage and resolution for the future in reference to the cause of
God, and the enemies and friends thereof, do therefore declare that
this kingdom does not own or espouse any malignant party, or quarrel,
or interest, but that they fight merely upon their former grounds and
principles, and in defence of the cause of God and the kingdom as they
have done these twelve years past; and therefore as they do disclaim
all the sin and guilt of the King, and of his house, so they will not
own him nor his interest, otherwise than with subordination to God,
and so far as he owns and prosecutes the cause of God, and disclaims
his and his father's opposition to the work of God and the Covenant,
and likewise all the enemies thereof; and that they will, with all
convenient speed, take in consideration the papers lately sent them
from Oliver Cromwell, and vindicate themselves from all the falsehoods
contained therein; especially in those things wherein the quarrel
betwixt us and that party is mis-stated, as if we owned the late King's
proceedings and were resolved to prosecute and maintain his present
Majesty's interest before and without acknowledgment of the sins of
his house and former ways, and satisfaction to God's people in both
kingdoms.
["The Committee of Estates having seen and considered the declaration
of the Commissioners of the General Assembly, anent the stating of the
quarrel whereupon the army is to fight, approved the same, and heartily
concurred therein.
"THOS. HENDERSON."][30]
The Episcopalian Royalists of England regarded the Scots with the
utmost aversion, and had just been shocked by their hanging the Marquis
of Montrose, who had taken up arms for Charles I. as early as the year
1643. Moreover, they entertained deceitful hopes respecting Irish
affairs. Hence, when they were told of what the prince had done, they
could not believe their own ears.
"We are here in an amaze to understand that the King is gone for
Scotland, especially after that horrid murder of the Marquis of
Montrose, wherein the King's honour suffered as great a butchery as he
did: and my thoughts are the more troubled at his Majesty's adventure
thither because we have lately received so good news from Ireland, as
that all the Papists have submitted to my Lord of Ormond, and they
have lately given Sir C. Coote a great defeat in the north of Ireland,
and hope to master the whole kingdom by Michaelmas; which, methinks,
seems to upbraid the King's hasty counsellors, who having no patience
at all to rely on God's providence, and looking still upon mere human
strength, without any consideration of honour or conscience, are still
crying out, What else have we to do? when indeed there are times when
honest men must pray and do nothing else until God's providence open a
way fit for them to take. And now for aught appears to us they have
thrust our master upon a course of so much danger that they themselves
shrink at the sight of it, when, had they been but masters of so much
Christian patience as to have staid awhile, things probably might have
been put into a fair and an hopeful way. These are sad considerations,
and they make me fear God's heavy hand is still upon us, who will
neither be persuaded, nor indeed knocked into any religion, and to
suffer that fond instance of Henry IV. of France to persuade more with
us than all the precepts of Christ's Gospel.
[Sidenote: 1650, September.]
"I should give the poor Church for utterly lost, but that I believe
there is a good God in heaven; but, however it fare with her, some
I fear will one day sharply answer that they have preserved her no
better, and that to gain the speedier ease they have preferred rash and
wicked counsels before those that were pious and just, because they
seemed not to promise a more sudden way to prosperity."[31]
[Sidenote: _Trouble with the Presbyterians._]
Another Royalist letter in September reveals what was going on in
Scotland--the trouble the Presbyterians had with the King--and the
trouble he had with them.
"Mr. Thomas Weston and Daniel O'Neile came from the King nine days
ago. Our glorious news of Cromwell's total defeat is nothing to that
we hoped, yet he hath had a knock, and may very probably be worsted
if the Scots do their best, that is, sit still. But the ministers
press their men to fight, contrary to their commander's opinion. If
they fight they hazard a beating. The ministers have lately purged
the army of 5,000 profane persons, and Lowden went about the camp to
tell them it was the cause of God, and not to be maintained by wicked
men. Such they account all cavaliers, Montrosians, and such as engaged
with Hamilton, that is to say, their best soldiers. Whether this be
madness or treachery a little time may discover. The King must not go
to the army, for fear he may gain too much upon the soldier. He was
pressed to a declaration imputing the late bloodshed and miseries to
his mother's Popery and his father's following bad counsel and opposing
the Covenant. This the King refused to the death; whereupon instantly
the Kirk declare against him, and offer to treat with Cromwell. To
prevent the consequences whereof, the King sends to the Kirk again, by
Argyle's advice, and satisfies them, mollifying only some words in the
declaration. So, as he says in it now, that his father's ill counsel,
&c., was the occasion (not the cause) of the troubles. Argyle hath
given him great professions of his fidelity, seems to be overpowered by
the clergy, and says when the King comes into England he may be more
free, but for the present it is necessary to please these madmen. The
votes for removing from the King the company that came with him from
home, are fully confirmed by the Parliament. They make no laws which
are of force till the Assemblies of the Kirk allow them. This is the
substance of what I heard from Thomas Weston: you will have it more
fully from other hands. I write only to let you see how ready I should
be if I were able to express myself.
"Your Honour's most humble servant,
"GEORGE RADCLIFFE."
[Sidenote: 1650, September.]
This letter is dated from the Hague the 7th of September.[32] Fairfax,
from Presbyterian scruples, having declined the office, Cromwell had
now gone to Scotland as Generalissimo of the Commonwealth army,
to crush at once this Scotch attempt, which, by making Charles the
covenanted King of Scotland, prepared for making him the covenanted
King of England. Not to have endeavoured to put a stop to this
enterprise, would have been suicidal infatuation on the part of the
founder of the English Commonwealth. The great captain had crossed
the Tweed on the 22nd of July, with no such faith in the Covenant as
the Scotch brethren cherished; nay, looking on their faith in it as
superstitious, and saying even to the General Assembly: "There may
be, as well, a carnal confidence upon misunderstood and misapplied
precepts, which may be called spiritual drunkenness. There may be a
_Covenant_ made with death and hell." Weston and O'Neile had left
the King on the 29th of August, and in some slowly-sailing smack
had reached Holland, bringing "glorious" news, which turned out in
the end to be very false, and was soon followed by other news very
disastrous. By Cromwell's "defeat"--the report of which, as related,
did not satisfy Mr. George Radcliffe--must have been meant the retreat
of the army from Edinburgh after a skirmish on the 27th, "Wherein,"
says Cromwell, "we had near twenty killed and wounded, but not one
commission officer. The enemy, as we are informed, had about eighty
killed, and some considerable officers. Seeing they would keep their
ground, from which we could not remove them, and our bread being spent,
we were necessitated to go for a new supply, and so marched off about
ten or eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning."[33]
[Sidenote: _Battle of Dunbar._]
Four days before Radcliffe's letter was written, something had occurred
very different indeed from the royalist report.
Late in the blustering night of the 2nd of September, as the blasts
shook the tents at Dunbar, and the sleet cut the faces of the sentries,
Leslie on the Scotch side, and Cromwell on the English, were encamped
front to front, prepared for battle; the former sure of victory from
what he gathered as to the condition of the invaders. Cromwell intended
to begin the attack at daybreak, and, as the moon rode high, gleaming
through the rent clouds, and the first blush of dawn streaked the
horizon, he was ready; but the action hardly began before sunrise.
And yet, an hour later--when the September mist rolled off the German
ocean, and the sun broke all silvery on the waters, lighting up St.
Abb's Head, while the cry of the English commander was heard along the
line, "Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered,"--his soldiers,
with a tornado rush, had swept down the foe. Thousands were slain, the
rest routed, and by nine o'clock Leslie rode into Edinburgh, a brave
but beaten soldier.
[Sidenote: 1650, September.]
Cromwell, as he rode into the same city a conqueror, found the clergy
had left the churches. He sent a trumpet to the castle, to assure the
Governor that the clergy might return in peace, that he would not
hinder the preaching of the Gospel; only preachers must remember not
to rail at their superiors and "overtop the civil power." In reply to
the complaint that the pulpit had been opened to sectaries and laymen,
the victorious Independent put another question:--"Are you troubled
that Christ is preached? Is preaching so exclusively your function?
Doth it scandalize the reformed kirks and Scotland in particular? Is it
against the Covenant? Away with the Covenant if this be so! I thought
the Covenant and 'these professors of it' could have been willing
that any should speak good of the name of Christ; if not, it is no
Covenant of God's approving; nor are these kirks you mention in so much
the spouse of Christ. Where do you find in the Scripture a ground to
warrant such an assertion, that preaching is exclusively your function?
Though an approbation from men hath order in it, and may do well, yet
he that hath no better warrant than that, hath none at all. I hope He
that ascended up on high may give His gifts to whom He pleases, and if
those gifts be the seal of mission, be not 'you' envious though Eldad
and Medad prophesy."[34] In this rather uncouth phraseology may be
discerned a certain soldierly instinct, not very different from what is
so noticeable in the despatches of a modern general of a far different
school. Cromwell, like Wellington, could use words, even as the
soldiers at Waterloo and in the civil wars could use swords, cleaving a
subject asunder down to the very heart, at a single stroke.
[Sidenote: 1651, January.]
Presbyterian Scotland, honest to the core, stood faithful to what as
it believed was God's own cause. Shall our glorious Covenant--not of
earth, but of heaven--be crushed by this Independent captain, brave
though he be; shall it be buried on the field of this Dunbar fight? No,
no! Looking thus at the subject, the leaders, clerical as well as lay,
in spite of tormenting divisions in the nation and in the kirk, soon
busied themselves with preparations for another trial of arms. "All
of us in pulpit," writes Robert Baillie, "myself as much as others,
did promove the work. In a very short time three thousand five hundred
horse are gotten together, with hopes by volunteers, to make them above
five thousand."[35] But all went not on smoothly. Hopes were soon
blasted. Hot controversy arose as to whether the lawfulness of a war
against Cromwell could be justified by the Covenant. Some went so far
as to say: "That the commission of the Kirk would approve nothing that
was right; that a hypocrite ought not to reign over us--that we ought
to treat with Cromwell, and give him security not to trouble England
with a king--and who marred this treaty, the blood of the slain in this
quarrel be on their head!"
[Sidenote: _Coronation of Charles._]
However, the ruling party in Kirk and Court continued staunch to the
Covenant, and to the King whom they had persuaded to entrust his
crown to their keeping. That crown with all solemnity they placed
upon the Prince's head on New Year's day, 1651. The ceremony took
place at Scone, whose ancient abbey had witnessed the coronation of so
many kings of Scotland, as they sat on "the stone of destiny"--still
preserved under Edward the Confessor's chair at Westminster. But
the solemnities on this occasion appeared shorn of all the splendid
ritualism which in other days had adorned the inauguration of a new
reign. Mr. Douglas preached upon the crowning of King Joash, "a very
pertinent, wise, and good sermon." Charles then swore, in the presence
of Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, that he would prosecute the
ends prescribed in the Covenant, and agree to all Acts of Parliament
for the establishment in his Scotch realm, of Presbyterian rule, of
the Directory, the confession and the catechism of the Kirk; and also
consent to Acts of Parliament enjoining the same throughout the rest
of his dominions. The Earl of Argyle brought forth the crown, and
lifted it on the head of the chosen King. Mr. Robert Douglas prayed;
and when the Chancellor had conducted the Prince to the throne of his
ancestors, the same minister addressed to him an exhortation, pressing
on him the duty of constancy to the Covenant, and reminding him how
his grandfather James had broken his vow, the consequences of which
pursued his family--"God casting the King out of His lap"--and how
the plagues of heaven would fall on himself, if he failed to keep the
oath of his coronation day. The service closed "with a prayer, and the
twentieth psalm."[36]
Charles was forced into a confession of his father's sin in marrying
an idolatress, of his own bad education, of the prejudices against
God's cause which he had imbibed in his boyhood, and of his manifold
transgressions. He also declared his detestation of Popery and Prelacy,
and his resolution, inasmuch as he had obtained mercy of the Lord,
to be on the Lord's side, to do nothing but with the advice of His
Kirk. After all this hypocrisy he felt now in his new position--even
as he deserved--that he had a very hard time of it. Tedious forms
were imposed upon him; six sermons at one sitting being preached in
his presence. Not a walk was allowed him on a Sunday. Mewed up, as
he considered it, he had to spend hours in distasteful religious
exercises, or in such society as his keepers pleased: and if he
ventured to dance, or play at cards--which was a great delight to
his frivolous nature--some ministers, who had caught Knox's mantle,
administered reproof in a tone like that of the bold Reformer to Mary
Stuart, whose levity, fascinating manners, and some other qualities,
had descended to her great grandson.
[Sidenote: _Protesters and Resolutionists._]
Honest fanaticism, apparent throughout the treatment which Charles
received, manifested itself in some other rather curious ways.
First, in excluding from the King's army all who had incurred the
taint of malignancy, thereby cutting off from the cause of King and
Covenant half the resources at command; and, secondly, on a return
of common sense as to that matter, in proceeding to demand that old
malignants, now ready to fight the Lord's battles, should, before
they handled a pike or shouldered a musket, stand at the church door
and do penance. Accordingly, it is recorded, on Sunday, the 12th of
January, "This day Lieutenant-General Middleton was relaxed from his
excommunication, and did his penance in sackcloth in Dundee church;
and Colonel Archibald Strachan was excommunicated, and delivered to
the devil, in the church of Perth, by Mr. Alexander Rollock, the same
day." The Earl of Lauderdale, the Earl of Crawford, and other nobles,
expiated their malignancy after the same fashion. From these two lines
of policy originated the two parties known in Scotland as Protesters
and Resolutionists--the former remonstrating against the employment of
profane and ungodly men in the camp, or the court, or on the bench;
the latter resolving upon their admission, after submitting to Church
discipline.[37]
[Sidenote: 1651, August.]
[Sidenote: _Battle of Worcester._]
It is not for us to describe the tactics of the Scotch army. It is
enough to say that, in August, 1651, that army found itself in such
a position with regard to Cromwell's camp, that it was "much nearer
to England than he."[38] It seemed safer to turn south than north.
Moreover, hopes grew up of large Presbyterian help on this side the
border. The army with the King therefore marched into Lancashire;
but the army and the King, once on English soil, soon shewed that
they were seeking different ends.[39] The army cared little for the
King, and much for the Covenant. The King cared much for his crown,
and not at all for the Covenant--except to hate it. The Committee of
Ministers attending on the forces prepared, unknown to his Majesty, a
declaration of their Presbyterian zeal, and of their purpose to receive
no recruits who would not subscribe the solemn League. This to Charles,
of course, appeared insanity, and he countermanded the publication; at
the same time ordering that civility should be shewn to any one who was
disposed to enter his service. When the Scotch design became known, it
tended to check the advances of episcopal Royalists; and, likewise, the
King's want of sympathy with the Covenant served to keep Presbyterians
away. Worse still, numbers of the Scots, now convinced of his
treachery, turned their backs and marched home, and those who continued
faithful fell into discord with their comrades. No cohesion could exist
between covenanted and anti-covenanting forces. Personal jealousies,
also, increased religious antipathies; for the Duke of Buckingham
wanted to snatch the command from the hands of General Leslie. By the
time the army reached Worcester--which the King had selected for his
last throw in the game of war--the army had fallen into a state of
perfect demoralization. Discord prevailed amongst the officers, and
confusion amongst the men. The image of iron and clay fell to pieces
at the first shock. Cromwell, who had followed the Royalists from
Scotland, dashed down upon them by the banks of the river Severn, ere
they were aware of his approach. The King suddenly, as he was dining
at noon, heard of a battle, and rushed out of the house, only to find
a body of his own horsemen already in retreat. They nearly rode over
his sacred person, and paid no attention whatever to his loud war cry.
The Ironsides swept all before them. Leslie reached Yorkshire with only
1,500 Covenanters; and the rest of the troops were scattered over the
country--blown about like the chaff of the summer threshing floor.
[Sidenote: 1651, May.]
If some English Presbyterians could not conscientiously fight for
the King, others could not conscientiously fight against him. The
Covenant, according to the fairest interpretation of it, together with
their own old English sentiments, constrained them to maintain their
loyalty to the crown. Regarding the father's execution as a murder,
they declined to help the regicides in their designs upon his son.
Dr. Samuel Annesley, John Wesley's grandfather, was a type of this
class. He refused to send a horse against his Majesty at Worcester,
and despatched a servant at night from a distance of forty miles to
secure the church keys, in order that no schismatical ministers might
hold a thanksgiving service in his church in celebration of Cromwell's
victory. Several times he denounced the General as the "arrantest
hypocrite" that ever pestered the Church of Christ; as one intent on
pulling "down others only to make his own way to the throne," for which
demonstrations before "some of note in the army" he was "necessitated
to quit a parsonage worth between £200 and £300 per annum."[40]
[Sidenote: 1651, July.]
In the spring of 1651, as Charles did penance for the recovery of the
throne, he had Presbyterian friends in London and elsewhere plotting
for the same end. They despatched letters to raise money and arms on
his behalf; and some of these letters, conveyed in a vessel driven by a
storm into the harbour of the town of Ayr, fell into Cromwell's hands.
[Sidenote: _Love's Trial._]
Several ministers were implicated, especially Christopher Love.[41]
It was the same person who had made himself famous by his Uxbridge
sermon against the Royalists, and he now found himself in the Tower,
a prisoner in the hands of the Parliament. Afterwards placed at the
bar of the High Court of Justice in Westminster Hall, this young
minister was charged with a criminal correspondence to restore Charles
Stuart, first, in violation of an ordinance which denounced a traitor's
death against those who should make such an attempt; and secondly,
in violation of another ordinance, against assisting foreigners to
invade the shores of England. Love, in his defence, declared that
he only retained his covenanting principles. He referred to what he
had suffered as a Puritan, and to what he had done as a patriot,
adding, "I have been kept several weeks in close prison, and am now
arraigned for my life, and like to suffer from the hands of those for
whom I have done and suffered so much, and who have lifted up their
hands with me on the same Covenant." He solemnly declared that he had
neither written nor sent letters into Scotland; but he confessed that
the proceedings in favour of the King were agreeable to his judgment,
and for the good of the nation. He owned that he had connived at the
scheme for restoring the prince, and had concealed some intelligence
respecting it; and for so doing he besought forgiveness, and threw
himself upon the mercy of the Court. Matthew Hale appeared as counsel
for the prisoner, but no plea or intercession could prevent a verdict
of guilty, or avert the sentence of death.
[Sidenote: Love's Trial.]
The efforts made by Mary Love to save the life of her husband, and the
correspondence which passed between them, form an affecting episode.
With that courage which is inspired by a wife's affection, and which
not unfrequently converts a timid and commonplace woman into a heroine,
she laid a petition before Parliament, imploring pardon for the
condemned, pledging his friends as security for his peaceable behaviour
in time to come, and begging that the God of heaven would bow the
hearts of England's rulers to shew mercy. Yet, fearing the worst, this
admirable woman wrote to her husband in strains of ardent tenderness,
telling him to be comforted; that death was but a little stroke, and
that he would soon be where the wicked cease from troubling, and the
weary are at rest. "Remember," she said, "though thou mayest eat thy
dinner with bitter herbs, yet thou shalt have a sweet supper with
Christ that night." He responded in the same spirit of resignation
and triumph, assuring her that, as there was "little between him and
death," so "there was little between him and heaven." A second prayer
from Mrs. Love entreated that, if her husband might not be thought
worthy to breathe English air, he might at least have leave to sigh
out his sorrows in the utmost parts of the earth. Fifty-four ministers
signed a petition, in which they besought the Parliament earnestly, and
"in the bowels of Jesus Christ, who, when we were sinners, died for us,
if not totally to spare the life of their dear brother, yet that they
would say of him as Solomon of Abiathar, that at this time he should
not be put to death." A reprieve for one month followed, at the end of
which period the suspense of wife and friends settled into blank agony.
A third petition produced no effect; nor a fourth, though in that the
broken-hearted woman cried, "Your desolate handmaid waiteth with all
humility and earnest expectation at your doors, beseeching you not to
forget to shew mercy to your poor petitioner and her tender babes."
"Be graciously pleased to prevent this dreadful blow." "Whilst you
are propagating the Gospel in New England, let my dying husband, as a
prophet from the dead, be sent to endeavour the conversion of the poor
Indians."
[Sidenote: 1651, August.]
The last words of Christopher Love to his brave, loving Mary were:
"Farewell, I will call thee wife no more--I shall see thy face no more;
yet I am not much troubled, for I am going to meet the bridegroom, the
Lord Jesus Christ, to whom I shall be eternally married."[42]
[Sidenote: _Love's Execution._]
Love met his fate on Tower Hill, on the 22nd of August (together
with Mr. Gibbon), and made a long speech, maintaining that he had
been convicted upon insufficient evidence, and that certain charges
affecting his moral and political character were utterly untrue. He
protested against the Engagement, and the invasion of Scotland by an
English army; he avowed his preference to die as a Covenant keeper,
rather than to live as a Covenant breaker; and ended his words with
spiritual counsels and appeals. Ash, Calamy, and Manton, attended
their brother on the scaffold; and Baxter says "he died with as great
alacrity, and fearless quietude, and freedom of speech, as if he had
gone to bed." Manton preached in St. Lawrence church, where Love had
been incumbent, a funeral sermon, published under the title of "The
Saint's Triumph in Death." The title indicates the preacher's opinion;
and in harmony with it is a statement in the discourse, that the
departed was a "pattern most worthy of imitation--a man eminent in
grace--a man of a singular life and conversation." Christopher Love
stood on the scaffold--where so many in like awful circumstances had
stood before--under a bright August sky; but soon after the shedding of
his blood the heavens became overcast, and thunder and lightning raged
all night. At a time when Nature was interpreted by each contending
faction as being on its side, no wonder royalist Presbyterians said
"God is angry at what has been done," and no wonder republican
Independents replied, "It is a mark of Divine judgment against
implacable apostasy."
[Illustration]