CHAPTER II.
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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]
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."
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]
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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]
1651, August.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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."
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]
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."
