Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 27)

From the time that the Reformers had resolved to refrain from being present at mass, they had been in the habit of meeting among themselves for the purpose of worship. … Elders and deacons were chosen to superintend the affairs of these infant communities. Edinburgh has the honour of having given the example, and the names of her first five elders are still preserved. The existence of these small Protestant 'congregations,' scattered over the country, probably led the lords to employ the word so frequently in their bond, and this again led to their being called the Lords of the Congregation. It was a bold document to which they had thus put their names. It was throwing down the gauntlet to all the powers of the existing Church and State."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: John Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland (Works, volume 1), book 1.

D. Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1557 (volume 1).

T. M'Crie, Life of John Knox, periods 5-6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558. Marriage of Mary Stuart to the Dauphin of France. Contemplated union of Crowns.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560. Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation. The Geneva Confession adopted.

"In 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St. Andrew's, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented their demands to the regent [the queen-dowager, Mary of Guise], and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth's accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland. … Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In May, 1559, the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came, but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was afraid, and promised that, if they would disperse, she would proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in their absence. {2856} Knox's anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry, preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose ruins still bear witness to their former splendour. … The Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was, however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the regent (October, 1559). This was a bold step; but without help from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth's position to set. … At last, in January, 1560, a treaty was made at Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Duke of Chatelherault [better known as the Earl of Arran, who had resigned the regency of Scotland in favor of Mary of Guise, and received from the French king the duchy of Chatelherault], the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen. And now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were fighting side by side with the English against their old allies the French. Already their religious feelings had overcome their old national animosities; or, rather, religion itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit. … But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favourable to the Reformers. … The French troops were needed at home, and could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of Edinburgh (July, 1560), it was provided that henceforth no foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent of the Estates of the Realm. Elizabeth's policy was rewarded by a condition that Mary and Francis II. should acknowledge her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present. The Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the administration, of the mass, on pain of death for the third offence (August 25, 1560). … The plans of the Guises were no longer to be carried on in Scotland and Eng]and by armed interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their niece, Mary of Scotland [now widowed by the death, December 4, 1560, of her husband, the young French king, Francis II.], who had been trained under their influence."

M. Creighton, The Age of Elizabeth, book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. A. Froude, History of England, volume 7, chapters 2-3.

J. Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, book 2 (Works, volume 1).

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapters 37-38 (volume 4).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568. The reign of Mary. Differing views of her conduct and character.

In August, 1561, Queen Mary returned from her long residence in France, to undertake the government of a country of which she was the acknowledged sovereign, but of which she knew almost nothing. "She was now a widow, so the Scots were freed from the fear they had felt of seeing their country sink into a province of France. The people, who had an almost superstitious reverence for kingship, which was very inconsistent with their contempt for kingly authority, welcomed her with open arms. … They had yet to find out that she had come back to them French in all but birth, gifted with wit, intellect, and beauty, but subtle beyond their power of searching, and quite as zealous for the old form of religion as they were for the new one. The Queen, too, who came thus as a stranger among her own people, had to deal with a state of things unknown in former reigns. Hitherto the Church had taken the side of the Crown against the nobles; now both [the Reformed Church and the Lords of the Congregation] were united against the Crown, whose only hope lay in the quarrels between these ill-matched allies. The chief cause of discord between them was the property of the Church. The Reformed ministers fancied that they had succeeded, not only to the Pope's right of dictation in all matters, public and private, but to the lands of the Church as well. To neither of these claims would the Lords agree. They were as little inclined to submit to the tyranny of presbyters as to the tyranny of the Pope. They withstood the ministers who wished to forbid the Queen and her attendants hearing mass in her private chapel, and they refused to accept as law the First, Book of Discipline, a code of rules drawn up by the ministers for the guidance of the new Church. As to the land, much of it had already passed into the hands of laymen, who, with the lands, generally bore the title of the Church dignitary who had formerly held them. The Privy Council took one-third of what remained to pay the stipends of the ministers, while the rest was supposed to remain in the hands of the Churchmen in possession, and, as they died out, it was to fall in to the Crown. Lord James Stewart, Prior of St. Andrews, whom the Queen created Earl of Murray, was the hope of the Protestants, but in the north the Romanists were still numerous and strong. Their head was the Earl of Huntly, chief of the Gordons, who reigned supreme over most of the north." One of the first proceedings of the Queen was to join the Earl of Murray in hostilities which pursued the Earl of Huntly and his son to their death. {2857} And yet they were the main pillars of the Church which she was determined to restore! "The most interesting question now for all parties was, whom the Queen would marry. Many foreign princes were talked of, and Elizabeth suggested her own favourite, the Earl of Leicester, but Mary settled the matter herself by falling in love with her own cousin, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley." Murray opposed the marriage with bitterness, and took up arms against it, but failed of support and fled to England. The wretched consequences of Mary's union with the handsome but worthless Darnley are among the tragedies of history which all the world is acquainted with. She tired of him, and inflamed his jealousy, with that of all her court, by making a favorite of her Italian secretary, David Rizzio. Rizzio was brutally murdered, in her presence, March 9, 1566, by a band of conspirators, to whom Darnley had pledged his protection. The Queen dissembled her resentment until she had power to make it effective, flying from Edinburgh to Dunbar, meantime. When, within a month, she returned to the capital, it was with a strong force, brought to her support by James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. The murderers of Rizzio were outlawed, and Darnley, while recovering from an attack of smallpox, was killed (February 9, 1567) by the blowing up of a house, outside of Edinburgh, in which the Queen had placed him. "It was commonly believed that Bothwell was guilty of the murder, and it was suspected that he had done it to please the Queen and with her consent. This suspicion was strengthened by her conduct. She made no effort to find out the murderer and to bring him to punishment, and on the day of the funeral she gave Bothwell the feudal superiority over the town of Leith." In May, three months after Darnley's death, she married the Earl of Bothwell,—who had freed himself from an earlier tie by hasty divorce. This shameless conduct caused a rising of the barons, who occupied Edinburgh in force. Bothwell attempted to oppose them with an army; but there was no battle. The Queen surrendered herself, at Carberry, June 15, 1567; Bothwell escaped, first to Orkney, and then to Denmark, where he died about ten years later. "Just a month after her third marriage the Queen was brought back to Edinburgh, to be greeted by the railings of the mob, who now openly accused her as a murderess. … From Edinburgh she was taken to a lonely castle built on a small island in the centre of Loch Leven. A few days later a casket containing eight letters was produced. These letters, it was said, Bothwell had left behind him in his flight, and they seemed to have been written by Mary to him while Darnley was ill in Glasgow. If she really wrote them, they proved very plainly that she had planned the murder with Bothwell. They are called the 'casket letters,' from the box or casket in which they were found. The confederate barons acted as if they were really hers. The Lord Lindsay and Robert Melville were sent to her at Loch Leven, and she there signed the demission of the government to her son, and desired that Murray should be the first regent." The infant king, James VI., was crowned at Stirling; and Murray, recalled from France, became regent. Within a year Mary escaped from her prison, reasserted her right of sovereignty, and was supported by a considerable party. Defeated in a battle fought at Langside, May 13, 1568, she then fled to England, and received from Elizabeth the hospitality of a prison. She was confined in various castles and manor-houses, ending her life, after many removes, at Fotheringay, where she was executed February 8, 1587.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

M. Macarthur, History of Scotland, chapter 6.

"In spite of all the prurient suggestions of writers who have fastened on the story of Mary's life as on a savoury morsel, there is no reason whatever for thinking that she was a woman of licentious disposition, and there is strong evidence to the contrary. There was never anything to her discredit in France. … The charge of adultery with Rizzio is dismissed as unworthy of belief even by Mr. Froude, the severest of her judges. Bothwell indeed she loved, and, like many another woman who does not deserve to be called licentious, she sacrificed her reputation to the man she loved. But the most conclusive proof that she was no slave to appetite is afforded by her nineteen years' residence in England, which began when she was only twenty-five. During almost the whole of that time she was mixing freely in the society of the other sex, with the fullest opportunity for misconduct had she been so inclined. It is not to be supposed that she was fettered by any scruples of religion or morality. Yet no charge of unchastity is made against her. … That Darnley was murdered by Bothwell is not disputed. That Mary was cognisant of the plot and lured him to the shambles, has been doubted by few investigators at once competent and unbiased. She lent herself to this part not without compunction. Bothwell had the advantage over her that the loved has over the lover; and he used it mercilessly for his headlong ambition, hardly taking the trouble to pretend that he cared for the unhappy woman who was sacrificing everything for him. He in fact cared more for his lawful wife, whom he was preparing to divorce, and to whom he had been married only six months. … What brought sudden and irretrievable ruin on Mary was not the murder of Darnley, but the infatuation which made her the passive instrument of Bothwell's presumptuous ambition."

E. S. Beesly, Queen Elizabeth, chapter 4.

"Constitutionally, Mary was not a person likely to come under the sway of a violent and absorbing passion. Her whole nature was masculine in its moderation, its firmness, its magnanimity. She was tolerant, uncapricious, capable of carrying out a purpose steadily, yet with tact and policy. She was never hysterical, never fanciful. With her, love was not an engrossing occupation; on the contrary, to Mary, as to most men, it was but the child and plaything of unfrequent leisure. Her lovers went mad about her, but she never went mad about her lovers. She sent Chatelar to the scaffold. She saw Sir John Gordon beheaded. She admitted Rizzio to a close intimacy. Rizzio was her intellectual mate, the depository of her state secrets, her politic guide and confidant: but the very notoriety of her intercourse with him showed how innocent and unsexual it was in its nature,—the frank companionship of friendly statesmen. {2858} Had she been Rizzio's mistress, nay, even had love in the abstract been a more important matter to her than it was, she would have been more cautious and discreet; however important the public business which they were transacting might have been, she would hardly have kept the Italian secretary in her boudoir half the night. Her marriage with Darnley was not exclusively a love-match: it was a marriage to which her judgment, as well as her heart, consented. Her love-letters abound in pretty trifles: her business letters are clear, strong, rapid, brilliantly direct. By the fantastic irony of fate this masculine unsentimental career has been translated into an effeminate love-story,—the truth being, as I have had to say again and again, that no woman ever lived to whom love was less of a necessity. This was the strength of Mary's character as a queen—as a woman, its defect. A love-sick girl, when her castle in the air was shattered, might have come to hate Darnley with a feverish feminine hatred; but the sedate and politic intelligence of the Queen could only have been incidentally affected by such considerations. She knew that, even at the worst, Darnley was a useful ally, and the motives which induced her to marry him must have restrained her from putting him forcibly away. Yet when the deed was done, it is not surprising that she should have acquiesced in the action of the nobility. Bothwell, again, was in her estimation a loyal retainer, a trusted adviser of the Crown; but he was nothing more. Yet it need not surprise us that after her forcible detention at Dunbar, she should have resolved to submit with a good grace to the inevitable. Saving Argyle and Huntley, Bothwell was the most powerful of her peers. He was essentially a strong man; fit, it seemed, to rule that turbulent nobility. He had been recommended to her acceptance by the unanimous voice of the aristocracy, Protestant and Catholic. … On a woman of ardent sentimentality these considerations would have had little effect: they were exactly the considerations which would appeal to Mary's masculine common-sense. Yet, though she made what seemed to her the best of a bad business, she was very wretched."

J. Skelton, Essays in History and Biography, pages 40-41.

"To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-conspirator with Bothwell in the murder of her husband. … The expressions in the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from other corroborative evidence, the evidence of the letters, if their genuineness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an absolutely vital bearing on the character of Mary. Mr. Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters, and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the 'theory of the ecclesiastics'—that Mary, during the whole progress of the plot against Darnley's life, was 'innocent as a child, immaculate as a saint.' He is unable to adopt a more friendly attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position—that she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty; that, ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of murder a middle position—a position of even partial indifference—is, except in very peculiar circumstances, well-nigh impossible; in the case of a wife's attitude to the murder of her husband, the limit of impossibility is still more nearly approached; but when the wife possesses such exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be regarded as absolute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her husband's conduct with antipathy and indignation; she did not conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of marriage to him; and she had abundant reasons, many of which were justifiable, for this desire. … The fatal weakness … of all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do not harmonize with the leading traits of her disposition. She was possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy. She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to which she had any strong aversion."

T. F. Henderson, The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots, chapter 1.

"The beauties of her person, and graces of her air, combined to make her the most amiable of women; and the charms of her address and conversation aided the impression which her lovely figure made on the hearts of all beholders. Ambitious and active in her temper, yet inclined to cheerfulness and society; of a lofty spirit, constant and even vehement in her purpose, yet polite, and gentle, and affable in her demeanour; she seemed to partake only so much of the male virtues as to render her estimable, without relinquishing those soft graces which compose the proper ornament of her sex. In order to form a just idea of her character, we must set aside one part of her conduct, while she abandoned herself to the guidance of a profligate man; and must consider these faults, whether we admit them to be imprudences or crimes, as the result of an inexplicable, though not uncommon, inconstancy in the human mind, of the frailty of our nature, of the violence of passion, and of the influence which situations, and sometimes momentary incidents, have on persons whose principles are not thoroughly confirmed by experience and reflection. Enraged by the ungrateful conduct of her husband, seduced by the treacherous counsels of one in whom she reposed confidence, transported by the violence of her own temper, which never lay sufficiently under the guidance of discretion, she was betrayed into actions which may with some difficulty be accounted for, but which admit of no apology, nor even of alleviation. An enumeration of her qualities might carry the appearance of a panegyric: an account of her conduct must in some parts wear the aspect of severe satire and invective. Her numerous misfortunes, the solitude of her long and tedious captivity, and the persecutions to which she had been exposed on account of her religion, had wrought her up to a degree of bigotry during her later years; and such were the prevalent spirit and principles of the age, that it is the less wonder if her zeal, her resentment, and her interest uniting, induced her to give consent to a design which conspirators, actuated only by the first of these motives, had formed against the life of Elizabeth."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 42 (volume 4).

{2859}

"More books have been written about Mary Stuart than exist as to all the Queens in the world; yet, so greatly do those biographies vary in their representations of her character, that at first it seems scarcely credible how any person could be so differently described. The triumph of a creed or party has unhappily been more considered than the development of facts, or those principles of moral justice which ought to animate the pen of the Historian; and, after all the literary gladiatorship that has been practised in this arena for some three hundred years, the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of Scots is still under consideration, for party feeling and sectarian hate have not yet exhausted their malice. … If the opinions of Mary Stuart's own sex were allowed to decide the question at issue, a verdict of not guilty would have been pronounced by an overwhelming majority of all readers, irrespective of creed or party. Is, then, the moral standard erected by women for one another, lower than that which is required of them by men? Are they less acute in their perceptions of right and wrong, or more disposed to tolerate frailties? The contrary has generally been proved. With the exception of Queen Elizabeth, Catharine de Medicis, Lady Shrewsbury, and Margaret Erskine (Lady Douglas), of infamous memory, Mary Stuart had no female enemies worthy of notice. It is a remarkable fact that English gold could not purchase witnesses from the female portion of the household of the Queen of Scots. None of the ladies of the Court, whether Protestant or Catholic, imputed crime at any time to their mistress. In the days of her Royal splendour in France Queen Mary was attended by ladies of ancient family and unsullied honour, and, like true women, they clung to her in the darkest hour of her later adversity, through good and evil report they shared the gloom and sorrow of her prison life."

S. H. Burke, Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty and the Reformation Period, volume 4, chapter 7.

"Mary Stuart was in many respects the creature of her age, of her creed, and of her station; but the noblest and most noteworthy qualities of her nature were independent of rank, opinion, or time. Even the detractors who defend her conduct on the plea that she was a dastard and a dupe are compelled in the same breath to retract this implied reproach, and to admit, with illogical acclamation and incongruous applause, that the world never saw more splendid courage at the service of more brilliant intelligence; that a braver if not 'a rarer spirit never did steer humanity.' A kinder or more faithful friend, a deadlier or more dangerous enemy, it would be impossible to dread or to desire. Passion alone could shake the double fortress of her impregnable heart and ever active brain. The passion of love, after very sufficient experience, she apparently and naturally outlived; the passion of hatred and revenge was as inextinguishable in her inmost nature as the emotion of loyalty and gratitude. Of repentance it would seem that she knew as little as of fear; having been trained from her infancy in a religion where the Decalogue was supplanted by the Creed. Adept as she was in the most exquisite delicacy of dissimulation, the most salient note of her original disposition was daring rather than subtlety. Beside or behind the voluptuous or intellectual attractions of beauty and culture, she had about her the fresher charm of a fearless and frank simplicity, a genuine and enduring pleasure in small and harmless things no less than in such as were neither. … For her own freedom of will and of way, of passion and of action, she cared much; for her creed she cared something; for her country she cared less than nothing. She would have flung Scotland with England into the hellfire of Spanish Catholicism rather than forego the faintest chance of personal revenge. … In the private and personal qualities which attract and attach a friend to his friend and a follower to his leader, no man or woman was ever more constant and more eminent than Mary Queen of Scots."

A. C. Swinburne, Mary Queen of Scots (Miscellanies, pages 357-359).

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapters 41-47 (volume 4).

M. Laing, History of Scotland, volumes 1-2.

F. A. Mignet, History of Mary, Queen of Scots.

A. Strickland, Life of Mary, Queen of Scots.

J. Skelton, Maitland of Lethington.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, Appendix.

C. M. Yonge, Cameos of English History, series 4, chapter 32, and series 5, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1567. Accession of James VI.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1568-1572. Distracted state of the kingdom. The Reformed Church and John Knox.

During the whole minority of the young king, James VI., Scotland was torn by warring factions. Murray, assassinated in 1570, was succeeded in the regency by the Earl of Lennox, who was killed in a fight the next year. The Earl of Mar followed him, and Morton held the office next. "The civil commotions that ensued on Murray's assassination were not wholly adverse to the reformed cause, as they gave it an overwhelming influence with the king's party, which it supported. On the other hand they excused every kind of irregularity. There was a scramble for forfeited estates and the patrimony of the kirk, from which latter source the leaders of both parties rewarded their partisans. … The church … viewed with alarm the various processes by which the ecclesiastical revenues were being secularised. Nor can it be doubted that means, by which the evil might be stayed, were the subject of conference between committees of the Privy Council and General Assembly. The plan which was actually adopted incorporated in the reformed church the spiritual estate, and reintroduced the bishops by their proper titles, subject to stringent conditions of qualification. …

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

Knox, whose life had been attempted in March 1570-1, had been constrained to retire from Edinburgh and was at St. Andrews when the new platform was arranged. On the strength of certain notices that are not at all conclusive, it has been strenuously denied that he was a party to it even by consent. … There are facts, however, to the contrary. … On the evidence available Knox cannot be claimed as the advocate of a divine right, either of presbytery or episcopacy. … With fast-failing strength he returned to Edinburgh towards the end of August." On the 24th of November, 1572, he died.

M. C. Taylor, John Knox (St. Giles' Lectures, 3d series).

{2860}

"It seems to me hard measure that this Scottish man [John Knox], now after three-hundred years, should have to plead like a culprit before the world; intrinsically for having been, in such way as it was then possible to be, the bravest of all Scotchmen! Had he been a poor Half-and-half, he could have crouched into the corner, like so many others; Scotland had not been delivered; and Knox had been without blame. He is the one Scotchman to whom, of all others, his country and the world owe a debt. He has to plead that Scotland would forgive him for having been worth to it any million 'unblamable' Scotchmen that need no forgiveness. He bared his breast to the battle; had to row in French galleys, wander forlorn in exile, in clouds and storms; was censured, shot-at through his windows; had a right sore fighting life; if this world were his place of recompense, he had made but a bad venture of it. I cannot apologise for Knox. To him it is very indifferent, these two-hundred-and-fifty years or more, what men say of him."

T. Carlyle, Heroes and Hero-worship, lecture 4.

"Altogether, if we estimate him [Knox], as we are alone entitled to do, in his historical position and circumstances, Knox appears a very great and heroic man—no violent demagogue, or even stern dogmatist—although violence and sternness and dogmatism were all parts of his character. These coarser elements mingled with but did not obscure the fresh, living, and keenly sympathetic humanity beneath. Far inferior to Luther in tenderness and breadth and lovableness, he is greatly superior to Calvin in the same qualities. You feel that he had a strong and loving heart under all his harshness, and that you can get near to it, and could have spent a cheery social evening with him in his house at the head of the Canon gate, over that good old wine that he had stored in his cellar, and which he was glad and proud to dispense to his friends. It might not have been a very pleasant thing to differ with him even in such circumstances; but, upon the whole, it would have been a pleasanter and safer audacity than to have disputed some favourite tenet with Calvin. There was in Knox far more of mere human feeling and of shrewd worldly sense, always tolerant of differences; and you could have fallen back upon these, and felt yourself comparatively safe in the utterance of some daring sentiment. And in this point of view it deserves to be noticed that Knox alone of the reformers, along with Luther, is free from all stain of violent persecution. Intolerant he was towards the mass, towards Mary, and towards the old Catholic clergy; yet he was no persecutor. He was never cruel in act, cruel as his language sometimes is, and severe as were some of his judgments. Modern enlightenment and scientific indifference we have no right to look for in him. His superstitions about the weather and witches were common to him with all men of his time. … As a mere thinker, save perhaps on political subjects, he takes no rank; and his political views, wise and enlightened as they were, seem rather the growth of his manly instinctive sense than reasoned from any fundamental principles. Earnest, intense, and powerful in every practical direction, he was not in the least characteristically reflective or speculative. Everywhere the hero, he is nowhere the philosopher or sage.—He was, in short, a man for his work and time—knowing what was good for his country there and then, when the old Catholic bonds had rotted to the very heart. A man of God, yet with sinful weaknesses like us all. There is something in him we can no longer love,—a harshness and severity by no means beautiful or attractive; but there is little in him that we cannot in the retrospect heartily respect, and even admiringly cherish."

J. Tulloch, Leaders of the Reformation: Knox.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573. Civil War.

"All the miseries of civil war desolated the kingdom. Fellow-citizens, friends, brothers, took different sides, and ranged themselves under the standards of the contending factions. In every county, and almost in every town and village, 'king's men' and 'queen's men' were names of distinction. Political hatred dissolved all natural ties, and extinguished the reciprocal good-will and confidence which hold mankind together in society. Religious zeal mingled itself with these civil distinctions, and contributed not a little to heighten and to inflame them. The factions which divided the kingdom were, in appearance, only two; but in both these there were persons with views and principles so different from each other that they ought to be distinguished. With some, considerations of religion were predominant, and they either adhered to the queen because they hoped by her means to reestablish popery, or they defended the king's authority as the best support of the protestant faith. Among these the opposition was violent and irreconcilable. … As Morton, who commanded the regent's forces [1572, during the regency of Mar], lay at Leith, and Kirkaldy still held out the town and castle of Edinburgh [for the party of the queen], scarce a day passed without a skirmish. … Both parties hanged the prisoners which they took, of whatever rank or quality, without mercy and without trial. Great numbers suffered in this shocking manner; the unhappy victims were led by fifties at a time to execution; and it was not till both sides had smarted severely that they discontinued this barbarous practice." In 1573, Morton, being now regent, made peace with one faction of the queen's party, and succeeded, with the help of a siege train and force which Queen Elizabeth sent him from England, in overcoming the other faction which held Edinburgh and its castle. Kirkaldy was compelled to surrender after a siege of thirty-three days, receiving promises of protection from the English commander, in spite of which he was hanged.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapters 53-56 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572. Episcopacy restored. The Concordat of Leith. The Tulchan Bishops.

"On the 12th of January, 1572, a Convention of the Church assembled at Leith. By whom it was convened is unknown. It was not a regular Assembly, but it assumed to itself 'the strength, force, and effect of a General Assembly,' and it was attended by 'the superintendents, barons, commissioners to plant kirks, commissioners of provinces, towns, kirks, and ministers.' … {2861} By the 1st of February the joint committees framed a concordat, of which the following articles were the chief;

1. That the names of archbishops and bishops, and the bounds of dioceses, should remain as they were before the Reformation, at the least till the majority of the king, or till a different arrangement should be made by the parliament; and that to every cathedral church there should be attached a chapter of learned men; but that the bishops should have no more power than was possessed by the superintendents, and should like them be subject to the General Assemblies.

2. That abbots and friars should be continued as parts of the Spiritual Estate of the realm. …

Such was the famous concordat agreed upon by the Church and State in Scotland in 1572. … The Church had in vain … struggled to get possession of its patrimony. It had in vain argued that the bishoprics and abbacies should be dissolved, and their revenues applied for the maintenance of the ministry, the education of the youthhead, and the support of the poor. The bishoprics and abbacies were maintained as if they were indissoluble. Some of them were already gifted to laymen, and the ministers of the Protestant Church were poorly paid out of the thirds of benefices. The collection of these even the regent had recently stopped, and beggary was at the door. What was to be done? The only way of obtaining the episcopal revenues was by reintroducing the episcopal office. … The ministers regarded archbishops, bishops, deans and chapters as things lawful, but not expedient—'they sounded ·of papistry'; but now, under the pressure of a still stronger expediency, they received them into the Church. … Knox yielded to the same necessity under which the Church had bowed. … It was a mongrel prelacy that was thus introduced into Scotland—a cross betwixt Popery and Presbytery. It was not of the true Roman breed. It was not even of the Anglican. It could not pretend to the apostolical descent."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 12.

"The new dignitaries got from the populace the name of the Tulchan bishops. A tulchan, an old Scots word of unknown origin, was applied to a stuffed calf-skin which was brought into the presence of a recently-calved cow. It was an agricultural doctrine of that age, and of later times, that the presence of this changeling induced the bereaved mother easily to part with her milk. To draw what remained of the bishops' revenue, it was expedient that there should be bishops; but the revenues were not for them, but for the lay lords, who milked the ecclesiastical cow."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 54 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581. The Second Covenant, called also The First National Covenant.

"The national covenant of Scotland was simply an abjuration of popery, and a solemn engagement, ratified by a solemn oath, to support the protestant religion. Its immediate occasion was a dread, too well founded—a dread from which Scotland was never entirely freed till the revolution—of the re-introduction of popery. It was well known that Lennox was an emissary of the house of Guise, and had been sent over to prevail on the young king to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. … A conspiracy so dangerous at all times to a country divided in religious sentiment, demanded a counter-combination equally strict and solemn, and led to the formation of the national covenant of Scotland. This was drawn up at the king's request, by his chaplain, John Craig. It consisted of an abjuration, in the most solemn and explicit terms, of the various articles of the popish system, and an engagement to adhere to and defend the reformed doctrine and discipline of the reformed church of Scotland. The covenanters further pledged themselves, under the same oath, 'to defend his majesty's person and authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ's evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within the realm or without.' This bond, at first called 'the king's confession,' was sworn and subscribed by the king and his household, for example to others, on the 28th of January 1581; and afterwards, in consequence of an order in council, and an act of the general assembly, it was cheerfully subscribed by all ranks of persons through the kingdom; the ministers zealously promoting the subscription in their respective parishes."

T. M'Crie, Sketches of Scottish Church History, volume 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: D. Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, volume 3, 1581.

J. Row, History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1581.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1582. The Raid of Ruthven.

"The two favourites [Lennox and Arran], by their ascendant over the king, possessed uncontrolled power in the kingdom, and exercised it with the utmost wantonness." The provocation which they gave brought about, at length, a combination of nobles, formed for the purpose of removing the young king from their influence. Invited to Ruthven Castle in August, 1582, by its master, Lord Ruthven, lately created Earl of Gowrie, James found there a large assemblage of the conspirators and was detained against his will. He was afterwards removed to Stirling, and later to the palace of Holyrood, but still under restraint. This continued until the following June, when the king effected his escape and Arran recovered his power. Lennox had died meantime in France. All those concerned in what was known as the Raid of Ruthven were proclaimed guilty of high treason and fled the country. The clergy gave great offense to the king by approving and sustaining the Raid of Ruthven. He never forgave the Church for its attitude on this occasion.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: C. M. Yonge, Cameos from English History, series 5, chapter 20.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584. The Black Acts.

"James was bent upon destroying a form of Church government which he imagined to be inconsistent with his own kingly prerogatives. The General Assembly rested upon too popular a basis; they were too independent of his absolute will; they assumed a jurisdiction which he could not allow. The ministers were too much given to discuss political subjects in the pulpit—to speak evil of dignities—to resist the powers that were ordained of God. … On the 22d of May, 1584, the Parliament assembled. … A series of acts were passed almost entirely subversive of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the Church. By one, the ancient jurisdiction of the Three Estates was ratified,—and to speak evil of any one of them was declared to be treason; thus were the bishops hedged about. By another, the king was declared to be supreme in all causes and over all persons, and to decline his judgment was pronounced to be treason; thus was the boldness of such men as Melville to be chastised. {2862} By a third, all convocations except those specially licensed by the king were declared to be unlawful; thus were the courts of the Church to be shorn of their power. By a fourth, the chief jurisdiction of the Church was lodged in the hands of the Episcopal body; for the bishops must now do what the Assemblies and presbyteries had hitherto done. By still another act, it was provided 'that none should presume, privately or publicly, in sermons, declamations, or familiar conferences, to utter any false, untrue, or slanderous speeches, to the reproach of his Majesty or council, or meddle with the affairs of his Highness and Estate, under the pains contained in the acts of parliament made against the makers and reporters of lies.' … The parliament registered the resolves of the king; for though Scottish barons were turbulent, Scottish parliaments were docile, and seldom thwarted the reigning power. But the people sympathized with the ministers; the acts became known as the Black Acts; and the struggle between the court and the Church, which lasted with some intermissions for more than a century, was begun."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: D. Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, volume 4, 1584.

Scottish Divines (St. Giles' Lectures, series 3), lecture 2.

J. Melville, Autobiography and Diary, 1584.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587. The execution of Mary Stuart in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587. Appropriation of Church lands and ruin of the Episcopacy.

The parliament of 1587 passed an act which "annexed to the crown such lands of the church as had not been inalienably bestowed upon the nobles or landed gentry; these were still considerable, and were held either by the titular bishops who possessed the benefices, or were granted to laymen by rights merely temporary. The only fund reserved for the clergy who were to serve the cure was the principal mansion house, with a few acres of glebe land. The fund from which their stipends were to be paid was limited to the tithes. … The crown … was little benefited by an enactment which, detaching the church lands from all connection with ecclesiastical persons, totally ruined the order of bishops, for the restoration of whom, with some dignity and authority, king James, and his successor afterwards, expressed considerable anxiety."

Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 37 (volume 2).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600. The Gowrie Plot.

"On the morning of the 5th of August, 1600, as James was setting out hunting from Falkland Palace, he was met by Alexander Ruthven, the younger brother of the Earl of Gowrie [both being sons of the Gowrie of the ' Raid of Ruthven'], who told him with a great air of mystery that he had discovered a man burying a pot of money in a field, and that he thought the affair so suspicious that he had taken him prisoner, and begged the King to come to Gowrie House in Perth to see him. James went, taking with him Mar, Lennox, and about twenty other gentlemen. After dinner Alexander took the King aside, and, when his attendants missed him, they were told that he had gone back to Falkland. They were preparing to follow him there when some of them heard cries from a turret. They recognized the King's voice, and they presently saw his head thrust out of a window, calling for help. They had much ado to make their way to him, but they found him at last in a small room struggling with Alexander, while a man dressed in armour was looking on. Alexander Ruthven and Gowrie were both killed in the scuffle which followed. A tumult rose in the town, for the Earl had been Provost and was very popular with the towns-folk, and the King and his followers had to make their escape by the river. The doom of traitors was passed on the dead men, and their name was proscribed, but as no accomplice could be discovered, it was hard to say what was the extent or object of their plot. The whole affair was very mysterious, the only witnesses being the King himself and Henderson the man in armour. Some of the ministers thought it so suspicions that they refused to return thanks for the King's safety, as they thought the whole affair an invention of his own." Eight years later, however, some letters were discovered which seemed to prove that there had really been a plot to seize the King's person.

M. Macarthur, History of Scotland, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 40 (volume 2).

P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 4, chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1603. Accession of James VI. to the English throne.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618. The Five Articles of Perth.

After his accession to the English throne, James became more deeply enamoured of Episcopacy, and of its ecclesiastical and ceremonial incidents, than before, and more determined to force them on the Scottish church. He worked to that end with arbitrary insolence and violence, and with every kind of dishonest intrigue, until he had accomplished his purpose completely. Not only were his bishops seated, with fair endowments and large powers restored, but he had them ordained in England, to ensure their apostolic legitimacy. When this had been done, he resolved to impose a liturgy upon the Church, with certain ordinances of his own framing. The five articles in which the latter were embodied became for two years the subject of a most bitter and heated struggle between the court and its bishops on one side, with most of the general clergy on the other. At length, in August, 1618, an Assembly made up at Perth proved subservient enough to submit to the royal brow-beating and to adopt the five articles. These Five Articles of Perth, as they are known, enjoined kneeling at the communion, observance of five holidays, and episcopal confirmation; and they authorized the private dispensation both of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The powers of the court of high commission were actively brought into play to enforce them.

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637. Laud's Liturgy and Jenny Geddes' Stool.

"Now we are summoned to a sadder subject; from the sufferings of a private person [John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, pursued and persecuted by Laud] to the miseries and almost mutual] ruin of two kingdoms, England and Scotland. I confess, my hands have always been unwilling to write of that cold country, for fear my fingers should be frostbitten therewith; but necessity to make our story entire puts me upon the employment. Miseries, caused from the sending of the Book of Service or new Liturgy thither, which may sadly be termed a 'Rubric' indeed, dyed with the blood of so many of both nations, slain on that occasion. {2863} It seems the design began in the reign of king James; who desired and endeavoured an uniformity of public prayers through the kingdom of Scotland. … In the reign of king Charles, the project being resumed (but whether the same book or no, God knoweth), it was concluded not to send into Scotland the same Liturgy of England 'totidem verbis,' lest this should be misconstrued a badge of dependence of that church on ours. It was resolved also, that the two Liturgies should not differ in substance, lest the Roman party should upbraid us with weighty and material differences. A similitude therefore not identity being resolved of, it was drawn up with some, as they termed them, insensible alterations, but such as were quickly found and felt by the Scotch to their great distaste. … The names of sundry saints, omitted in the English, are inserted into the Scotch Calendar (but only in black letters), on their several days. … Some of these were kings, all of them natives of that country. … But these Scotch saints were so far from making the English Liturgy acceptable, that the English Liturgy rather made the saints odious unto them. … No sooner had the dean of Edinburgh begun to read the book in the church of St. Giles, Sunday, July 23rd, in the presence of the Privy Council, both the archbishops, divers bishops, and magistrates of the city, but presently such a tumult was raised that, through clapping of hands, cursing, and crying, one could neither hear nor be heard. The bishop of Edinburgh endeavoured in vain to appease the tumult; when a stool, aimed to be thrown at him [according to popular tradition by an old herb-woman named Jenny Geddes], had killed, if not diverted by one present; so that the same book had occasioned his death and prescribed the form of his burial; and this hubbub was hardly suppressed by the lord provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh. This first tumult was caused by such, whom I find called 'the scum of the city,' considerable for nothing but their number. But, few days after, the cream of the nation (some of the highest and best quality therein) engaged in the same cause, crying out, 'God defend all those who will defend God's cause! and God confound the service-book and all the maintainers of it!'"

T. Fuller, Church History of Britain, book 11, section 2 (volume 3).

"One of the most distinct and familiar of historical traditions attributes the honour of flinging the first stool, and so beginning the great civil war, to a certain Jenny or Janet Geddes. But a search among contemporary writers for the identification of such an actor on the scene, will have the same inconclusive result that often attends the search after some criminal hero with a mythical celebrity when he is wanted by the police. … Wodrow, on the authority of Robert Stewart—a son of the Lord Advocate of the Revolution—utter]y dethrones Mrs. Geddes: 'He tells me that it's the constantly-believed tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when the service was read in the New Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the lasses that carried on the fray were prentices in disguise, for they threw stools to a great length.'"

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 6, pages 443-444, foot-note.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638. The Tables, and the signing of the National Covenant.

"Nobles, ministers, gentlemen, and burghers from every district poured into Edinburgh to take part in a national resistance to these innovations [of the Service Book], and an appeal was made from the whole body assembled in the capital, not only against the Service Book, but also against the Book of Canons and the conduct of the bishops. Instead, however, of granting redress of these grievances, the King issued a series of angry and exasperating proclamations, commanding the crowds of strangers in the capital to return immediately to their own homes, and instructing the Council and the Supreme Courts of Law to remove to Linlithgow. But instead of obeying the injunction to leave Edinburgh, the multitudes there continued to receive accessions from all parts of the country. … In answer to the complaint of the Council that their meeting in such numbers was disorderly and illegal, the supplicants offered to choose a limited number from each of the classes into which they were socially divided—nobles, lesser barons, burgesses, and clergy—to act as their representatives. This was at once very imprudently agreed to by the Council. A committee of four was accordingly selected by each of these classes, who were instructed to reside in the capital, and were empowered to take all necessary steps to promote their common object. They had also authority to assemble the whole of their constituents should any extraordinary emergency arise. The opponents of the new Canons and Service Book were thus organised with official approval into one large and powerful body, known in history as 'The Tables,' which speedily exercised an important influence in the country. As soon as this arrangement was completed, the crowds of supplicants who thronged the metropolis returned to their own homes, leaving the committee of sixteen to watch the progress of events." But the obstinacy of the King soon brought affairs to a crisis, and early in 1638 the deputies of The Tables "resolved to summon the whole body of supplicants to repair at once to the capital in order to concert measures for their common safety and the furtherance of the good cause. The summons was promptly obeyed, and after full deliberation it was resolved, on the suggestion of Johnstone of Warriston, that in order to strengthen their union against the enemies of the Protestant faith they should renew the National Covenant, which had been originally drawn up and sworn to at a time [A. D. 1581] when the Protestant religion was in imminent peril, through the schemes of France and Spain, and the plots of Queen Mary and the Roman Catholics in England and Scotland. The original document denounced in vehement terms the errors and devices of the Romish Church, and an addition was now made to it, adapting its declarations and pledges to existing circumstances."

J. Taylor, The Scottish Covenanters, chapter 1.

"It was in the Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh that it [the National Covenant] was first received, on February 28, 1638. The aged Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign his name. Then the whole congregation followed. Then it was laid on the flat grave-stone still preserved in the church-yard. Men and women crowded to add their names. Some wept aloud, others wrote their names in their own blood; others added after their names 'till death.' For hours they signed, till every corner of the parchment was filled, and only room left for their initials, and the shades of night alone checked the continual flow. {2864} From Greyfriars' church-yard it spread to the whole of Scotland. Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it 'in their portmanteaus and pockets, requiring and collecting subscriptions publicly and privately.' Women sat in church all day and all night, from Friday till Sunday, in order to receive the Communion with it. None dared to refuse their names."

A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland, lecture 2.

ALSO IN: J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 2.

D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 1, chapter 7.

R. Chambers, Domestic Annals of Scotland, volume 2, pages 116-127.

The following is the text of the Scottish National Covenant:

"The confession of faith of the Kirk of Scotland, subscribed at first by the King's Majesty and his household in the year of God 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year 1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the secret council, and acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at the desire of the General Assembly; with a general band for the maintenance of the true religion, and the King's person, and now subscribed in the year 1638, by us noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under subscribing; together with our resolution and promises for the causes after specified, to maintain the said true religion, and the King's Majesty, according to the confession aforesaid, and Acts of Parliament; the tenure whereof here followeth: 'We all, and every one of us underwritten, do protest, that after long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved of the truth, by the word and spirit of God; and therefore we believe with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm before God and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian faith and religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed evangel, and received, believed, and defended by many and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the Kirk of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this realm, as God's eternal truth and only ground of our salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the confession of our faith, established and publicly confirmed by sundry Acts of Parliament; and now of a long time hath been openly professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm, both in burgh and land. To the which confession and form of religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points, as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon His written Word; and therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland. But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ and His blessed evangel; his corrupted doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments, without the Word of God; his cruel judgments against infants departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations, with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage, forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitudes of advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their sins; his justification by works, "opus operatum," works of supererogation, merits, pardons, perigrinations and stations; his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith; his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy; his three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed Kirk, to which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, religion, faith, discipline, and life of the holy sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our head, promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same according to our vocation and power all the days of our lives, under the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of God's fearful judgment. And seeing that many are stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist, to promise, swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in the Kirk, deceitfully against their own consciences, minding thereby, first under the external cloak of religion, to corrupt and subvert secretly God's true religion within the Kirk; and afterwards, when time may serve, to become open enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the Pope's dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his great confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of the Lord Jesus. {2865} We therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy, and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, protest and call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds and hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise, oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved for any worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our consciences, through the knowledge and love of God's true religion printed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. And because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good behaviour of the King's Majesty, as upon a comfortable instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the maintenance of His Kirk, and ministration of justice among us, we protest and promise with our hearts under the same oath, handwrit, and pains, that we shall defend his person and authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ His evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death, and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Like as many Acts of Parliament not only in general do abrogate, annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions, canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances and practick penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true religion, and professors thereof, or of the true Kirk discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours of idolatry and superstition; or of the papistical kirk (as Act 3. Act 31. Parliament 1. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament 12, of K. James VI), that papistry and superstition may be utter]y suppressed, according to the intention of the Acts of Parliament reported in Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI. And to that end they ordained all papists and priests to be punished by manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as adversaries to God's true religion preached, and by law established within this realm (Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James VI) as common enemies to all Christian government (Act 18. Parliament 16. K. James VI), as rebellers and gainstanders of our Sovereign Lord's authority (Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, and as idolaters, Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI), but also in particular (by and attour the confession of faith) do abolish and condemn the Pope's authority and jurisdiction out of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be punished (Act 2. Parliament 1. Act 51. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 114. Parliament 12. of K. James VI); do condemn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and Christian religion publicly preached, and by law established in this realm; and ordains the spreaders or makers of books or libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished (Act 46. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn all baptism conform to the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the Mass; and ordains all sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the Mass, the maintainers, and resetters of the priests, Jesuits, trafficking Papists, to be punished without exception or restriction (Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 120. Parliament 12. Act 164. Parliament 13. Act 193. Parliament 14. Act 1. Parliament 19. Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI); do condemn all erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine against the religion presently professed, or containing superstitious rights or ceremonies papistical, whereby the people are greatly abused; and ordains the home-bringers of them to be punished (Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such other superstitious and papistical rites, to the dishonour of God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great errors among the people, and ordains the users of them to be punished for the second fault as idolaters (Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI). Like us many Acts of Parliament are conceived for maintenance of God's true and Christian religion, and the purity thereof in doctrine and sacraments of the true Church of God, the liberty and freedom thereof in her national synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy, discipline, and jurisdiction thereof, as that purity of religion and liberty of the Church was used, professed, exercised, preached, and confessed according to the reformation of religion in this realm. (As for instance: Act 99. Parliament 7. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament 12. Act 160. Parliament 13. K. James VI, ratified by Act 4. K. Charles.) So that Act 6. Parliament 1. and Act 68. Parliament 6. of K. James VI, in the year of God 1579, declare the ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of His mercy had raised up or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that then lived in doctrine and administration of the sacraments, and the people that professed Christ, as He was then offered in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments (as in the reformed Kirks of this realm they were presently administered) according to the confession of faith to be the true and holy Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm, and discerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsays the word of the evangel, received and approved as the heads of the confession of faith, professed in Parliament in the year of God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of K. James VI, and ratified in this present parliament, more particularly do specify; or that refuses the administration of the holy sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be no members of the said Kirk within this realm and true religion presently professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69. Parliament 6. K. James VI, declares that there is no other face of Kirk, nor other face of religion than was presently at that time by the favour of God established within this realm, which therefore is ever styled God's true religion, Christ's true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect religion, which by manifold Acts of Parliament all within this realm are bound to profess to subscribe the Articles thereof, the confession of faith, to recant all doctrine and errors repugnant to any of the said Articles (Act 4 and 9. Parliament 1. Act 45. 46. 47. Parliament 3. Act 71. Parliament 6. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. Act 123. Parliament 12. Act 194 and 197. Parliament 14 of King James VI). And all magistrates, sheriffs, &c., on the one part, are ordained to search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners (for instance, Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 104. Parliament 7. Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI), and that, notwithstanding of the King's Majesty's licences on the contrary, which are discharged and declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in any ways to the prejudice and hindrance of the execution of the Acts of Parliament against Papists and adversaries of the true religion (Act 106. Parliament 7. K. James VI). {2866} On the other part, in Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, it is declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God's true religion and His Highness's authority are so joined as the hurt of the one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyal and faithful subjects to our Sovereign Lord or his authority, but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same, who shall not give their confession and make profession of the said true religion; and that they, who after defection shall give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise to continue therein in time coming to maintain our Sovereign Lord's authority, and at the uttermost of their power to fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and professors of Christ's religion, against whatsoever enemies and gainstanders of the same; and namely, against all such of whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have joined or bound themselves, or have assisted or assists to set forward and execute the cruel decrees of Trent, contrary to the preachers and true professors of the Word of God, which is repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at Perth, the 23d February, 1572, approved by Parliament the last of April 1573, ratified in Parliament 1578, and related Act 123. Parliament 12. of K. James VI., with this addition, that they are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities raised against the true religion, the King's Majesty and the true professors. Like as an lieges are bound to maintain the King's Majesty's royal person and authority, the authority of Parliaments, without which neither any laws or lawful judicatories can be established (Act 130. Act 131. Parliament 8. K. James VI), and the subject's liberties, who ought only to live and be governed by the King's laws, the common laws of this realm allanerly (Act 48. Parliament 3. K. James I, Act 79. Parliament 6. K. James VI, repeated in Act 131. Parliament 8. K. James VI), which if they be innovated or prejudged the commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England, which is the sole Act of 17 Parliament James VI, declares such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no more a free monarchy, because by the fundamental laws, ancient privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only the princely authority of His Majesty's royal descent hath been these many ages maintained; also the people's security of their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities preserved; and therefore for the preservation of the said true religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by Act 8. Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7. ratified in Act 23. Parliament 11 and 14. Act of K. James VI and 4 Act of K. Charles, that all Kings and Princes at their coronation and reception of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise by their solemn oath in the presence of the Eternal God, that during the whole time of their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the utmost of their power, according as He hath required in His most Holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments, and according to the same Word shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of His Holy Word, the due and right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached within this realm (according to the confession of faith immediately preceding); and shall abolish and gainstand all false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will and commandment of God revealed in His aforesaid Word, and according to the lowable laws and constitutions received in this realm, no ways repugnant to the said will of the Eternal God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the Kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to root out of their Empire all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God of the aforesaid crimes. Which was also observed by His Majesty at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen in the Order of the Coronation. In obedience to the commands of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times, and according to the laudable example of our worthy and religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us, which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a general band to be made and subscribed by His Majesty's subjects of all ranks for two causes: one was, for defending the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed in the confession of faith above written, and a former large confession established by sundry acts of lawful general assemblies and of Parliament unto which it hath relation, set down in public catechisms, and which had been for many years with a blessing from heaven preached and professed in this Kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth grounded only upon His written Word. The other cause was for maintaining the King's Majesty, his person and estate: the true worship of God and the King's authority being so straitly joined, as that they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds; and confessing with our mouths, that the present and succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable:—We noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under subscribing, considering divers times before, and especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed religion of the King's honour, and of the public of the kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally contained and particularly mentioned in our late supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications, complaints and protestations have no warrant of the Word of God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the reestablishing of the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if everyone of them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other particular heads of papistry abjured therein. {2867} And therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God, to continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands, all the days of our life. And in like manner, with the same heart we declare before God and men, that we have no intention or desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour of God or the diminution of the King's greatness and authority; but on the contrary we promise and swear that we shall to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives, stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and preservation of the aforesaid true religion, liberties and laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and assistance everyone of us of another, in the same cause of maintaining the true religion and His Majesty's authority, with our best counsels, our bodies, means and whole power, against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever shall be done to the least of us for that cause shall be taken as done to us all in general, and to everyone of us in particular; and that we shall neither directly or indirectly suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever suggestion, combination, allurement or terror from this blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but on the contrary shall by all lawful means labour to further and promote the same; and if any such dangerous and divisive motion be made to us by word or writ, we and everyone of us shall either suppress it or (if need be) shall incontinently make the same known, that it may be timously obviated. Neither do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination or what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom for the common happiness of ourselves and posterity. And because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our proceedings, except with our profession and subscription, we join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who have renewed their covenant with God: we therefore faithfully promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all other under us, both in public, in our particular families and personal carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all godliness, soberness and righteousness, and of every duty we owe to God and man; and that this our union and conjunction may be observed without violation we call the living God, the searcher of our hearts to witness, who knoweth this to be our sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God's everlasting wrath, and of infamy, and of loss of all honour and respect in this world; most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with a happy success, that religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of us all.' In witness whereof we have subscribed with our hands all the premises, &c."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640. The First Bishops' War.

In November, 1638, a General Assembly was convened at Glasgow, with the consent of the king, and was opened by the Marquis of Hamilton as Royal Commissioner. But when the Assembly took in hand the trial of the bishops, Hamilton withdrew and ordered the members to disperse. They paid no heed to the order, but deposed the bishops and excommunicated eight of them. "The Canons and the Liturgy were then rejected, and all acts of the Assemblies held since 1606 were annulled. In the North, where Huntly was the King's lieutenant, the Covenant had not been received, and the Tables resolved to enforce it with the sword. Scotland was now full of trained soldiers just come back from Germany, where they had learnt to fight in the Thirty Years' war, and as plenty of money had been collected among the Covenanters, an army was easily raised. Their banner bore the motto, 'For Religion, the Covenant, and the Country,' and their leader was James Graham, Earl of Montrose, one of the most zealous among the champions of the cause. … While Montrose had been thus busy for the Covenant in the North, the King had been making ready to put down his rebellious Scottish subjects with the sword. Early in May a fleet entered the Forth under the command of Hamilton. But the Tables took possession of the strongholds, and seized the ammunition which had been laid in for the King. They then raised another army of 22,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and placed at its head Alexander Leslie, a veteran trained in the German war. Their army they sent southwards to meet the English host which the King was bringing to reduce Scotland. The two armies faced each other on opposite banks of the Tweed. The Scots were skilfully posted on Dunse Law, a hill commanding the Northern road. To pass them without fighting was impossible, and to fight would have been almost certain defeat. The King seeing this agreed to treat. By a treaty called the Pacification of Berwick, it was settled that the questions at issue between the King and the Covenanters should be put to a free Assembly, that both armies should be disbanded, and that the strongholds should be restored to the King (June 9, 1639). The Assembly which met at Edinburgh repeated and approved all that had been done at Glasgow. When the Estates met for the first time in the New Parliament-house, June 2, 1640, they went still further, for they not only confirmed the Acts of the Assemblies, but ordered every one to sign the Covenant under pain of civil penalties. {2868} Now for the first time they acted in open defiance of the King, to whom hitherto they had professed the greatest loyalty and submission. Three times had they been adjourned by the King, who had also refused to see the Commissioners whom they sent up to London. Now they met in spite of him, and, as in former times of troubles and difficulties, they appealed to France for help. When this intrigue with the French was found out, the Lord Loudon, one of their Commissioners, was sent to the Tower, and the English Parliament was summoned to vote supplies for putting down the Scots by force of arms."

M. Macarthur, History of Scotland, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1641, chapters 88-89 (volume 9).

D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 2, book 1, chapter 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1640. The Second Bishops' War.- Invasion of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1643. The Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645. The exploits of Montrose.

At the beginning of the conflict between Charles I. and the Covenanters, James Graham, the brilliant and accomplished Earl of Montrose, attached himself to the latter, but soon deserted their cause and gave himself with great earnestness to that of the court. For his reward, he was raised to the dignity of Marquis of Montrose. After the great defeat of Prince Rupert at Marston Moor, Montrose obtained a commission to raise forces among the Highlanders and proved to be a remarkably successful leader of these wild warriors. Along with his Highlanders he incorporated a body of still wilder Celts, received from Ireland. On the 1st of September, 1644, Montrose attacked an army of the Covenanters, 6,000 foot and horse, at Tippermuir, "totally routed them, and took their artillery and baggage, without losing a man. Perth immediately surrendered to Montrose, and he had some further successes; but threatened by a superior force under the Marquis of Argyll, he retreated northwards into Badenoch, and thence sweeping down into Argyllshire, he mercilessly ravaged the country of the Campbells. Exasperated with the devastation of his estates, Argyll marched against Montrose, who, not waiting to be attacked, surprised the army of the Covenanters at Inverlochy, 2d February, 1645, and totally defeated them, no fewer than 1,500 of the clan Campbell perishing in the battle, while Montrose lost only four or five men. Brilliant as were these victories, they had no abiding influence in quenching this terrible civil war. It was a game of winning and losing; and looking to the fact that the Scotch generally took the side of the Covenant, the struggle was almost hopeless. Still Montrose was undaunted. After the Inverlochy affair, he went southwards through Elgin and Banff into Aberdeenshire, carrying everything before him. Major-general Baillie, a second-rate Covenanting commander, and his lieutenant, General Hurry, were at Brechin, with a force to oppose him; but Montrose, by a dexterous movement, eluded them, captured and pillaged the city of Dundee, and escaped safely into the Grampians. On the 4th May, he attacked, and by extraordinary generalship routed Hurry at Auldearn, near Nairn. After enjoying a short respite with his fierce veterans in Badenoch, he again issued from his wilds, and inflicted a still more disastrous defeat on Baillie, at Alford, in Aberdeenshire, July 2. There was now nothing to prevent his march south, and he set out with a force of from 5,000 to 6,000 men." Overtaken by Baillie at Kilsyth, he once more defeated that commander overwhelmingly. "The number of slain was upwards of 6,000, with very few killed on the side of the royalists. The victory so effected, 15th August 1645, was the greatest Montrose ever gained. His triumph was complete, for the victory of Kilsyth put him in possession of the whole of Scotland. The government of the country was broken up; every organ of the recent administration, civil and ecclesiastical, at once vanished. The conqueror was hailed as 'the great Marquis of Montrose.' Glasgow yielded him tribute and homage; counties and burghs compounded for mercy. The city of Edinburgh humbly deprecated his vengeance, and implored his pardon and forgiveness." But, if the conquest of Scotland was complete for the moment, it came too late. The battle of Naseby had been fought two months before the battle of Kilsyth, and the king's cause was lost. It was in vain that Charles sent to his brilliant champion of the north a commission as Lieutenant-governor of Scotland. Montrose's army melted away so rapidly that when, in September, he marched south, leading his forlorn hope to the help of the king in England, he had but 700 foot and 200 mounted gentlemen. The small force was intercepted and surprised at Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) by Leslie, with 4,000 horse. Montrose, after fighting with vain obstinacy until no more fighting could be done, made his escape, with a few followers. Most of his troops, taken prisoners, were massacred a few days afterwards, cold-bloodedly, in the courtyard of Newark Castle; and the deed is said to have been due, not to military, but to clerical malignity.

W. Chambers, Stories of Old Families, pages 206-217.

ALSO in: M. Napier, Montrose and the Covenanters.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 73 (volume 7).

Lady V. Greville, Montrose.

P. Bayne, The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution, chapter 7.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1646-1647. Flight of King Charles to the Scots army and his surrender to the English Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1648. Royalist invasion of England and Battle of Preston.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY). Scottish loyalty revived. Charles II. accepted as a "Covenant King."

"The Scots had begun the great movement whose object was at once to resist the tyranny of the Stuarts and the tyranny of Rome, and which was destined to result in incalculable consequences for Europe. But now they retraced their steps, and put themselves in opposition to the Commonwealth of England. They wanted a leader. 'With Oliver Cromwell born a Scotchman,' says Carlyle; 'with a Hero King and a unanimous Hero Nation at his back, it might have been far otherwise. With Oliver born Scotch, one sees not but the whole world might have become Puritan.' Without shutting our eyes to the truth there may be in this pas·sage, we find the cause of this northern war elsewhere. In spiritual things the Scots acknowledged Jesus Christ as their king; in temporal, they recognized Charles II. {2869} They had no wish that the latter should usurp the kingdom of the former; but they also had no desire that Cromwell should seize upon the Stuarts' throne. They possessed a double loyalty—one towards the heavenly king, and another to their earthly sovereign. They had cast off the abuses of the latter, but not the monarchy itself. They accordingly invited the prince, who was then in Holland, to come to Scotland, and take possession of his kingdom. … Charles at this time was conniving at Montrose, who was spreading desolation throughout Scotland; and the young king hoped by his means to recover a throne without having to take upon himself any embarrassing engagement. But when the marquis was defeated, he determined to surrender to the Scottish parliament. One circumstance had nearly caused his ruin. Among Montrose's papers was found a commission from the king, giving him authority to levy troops and subdue the country by force of arms. The indignant parliament immediately recalled their commissioner from Holland; but the individual to whom the order was addressed treacherously concealed the document from his colleagues, and by showing it to none but the prince, gave him to understand that he could no longer safely temporize. Charles being thus convinced hurried on board, and set sail for Scotland, attended by a train of unprincipled men. The most serious thinkers in the nation saw that they could expect little else from him than duplicity, treachery, and licentiousness. It has been said that the Scotch compelled Charles to adopt their detested Covenant voluntarily. Most certainly the political leaders cannot be entirely exculpated of this charge; but it was not so with the religious part of the government. When he declared his readiness to sign that deed on board the ship, even before he landed, Livingston, who doubted his sincerity, begged him to wait until he had reached Scotland, and given satisfactory proofs of his good faith. But it was all to no effect. … If Charles Stuart had thought of ascending his native throne only, Cromwell and the English would have remained quiet; but he aimed at the recovery of the three kingdoms, and the Scotch were disposed to aid him. Oliver immediately saw the magnitude of the danger which threatened the religion, liberty, and morals of England, and did not hesitate."

J. H. Merle d'Aubigne, The Protector, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: A. Bisset, Omitted Chapters of the History of England, volume 1, chapter 5.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 75 (volume 7).

P. Bayne, The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution, chapter 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (September). Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

War with Scotland having been determined upon by the English Council of State, and Fairfax having declined the command, Cromwell was recalled from Ireland to head the army. "He passed the Tweed with an army of 16,000 men on the 16th of July. The Scots had placed themselves under the command of the old Earl of Leven and of David Leslie. As yet their army was a purely Covenanting one. By an act of the Scotch Church, called the Act of Classes, all known Malignants, and the Engagers (as those men were called who had joined Hamilton's insurrection), had been removed from the army. The country between the Tweed and Edinburgh had been wasted; and the inhabitants, terrified by ridiculous stories of the English cruelty, had taken flight; but Cromwell's army, marching by the coast, was supplied by the fleet. He thus reached the immediate neighbourhood of Edinburgh; but Leslie skilfully availed himself of the advantages of the ground and refused to be brought to an engagement. It became necessary for Cromwell to withdraw towards his supplies. He fell back to Dunbar, which lies upon a peninsula, jutting out into the Firth of Forth. The base of this peninsula is at a little distance encircled by high ground, an offshoot of the Lammermuir Hills. These heights were occupied by the Scotch army, as was also the pass through which the road to Berwick lies. Cromwell was therefore apparently shut up between the enemy and the sea, with no choice but to retire to his ships or surrender. Had Leslie continued his cautious policy, such might have been the event. A little glen, through which runs a brook called the Broxburn, separated the two enemies. Between it and the high grounds lay a narrow but comparatively level tract. Either army attacking the other must cross this glen. There were two convenient places for passing it: one, the more inland one, towards the right of the English, who stood with their back to the sea, was already in the hands of the Scotch. Could Leslie secure the other, at the mouth of the glen, he would have it in his power to attack when he pleased. The temptation was too strong for him; be gradually moved his army down from the hills towards its own right flank, thereby bringing it on the narrow ground between the hill and the brook, intending with his right to secure the passage at Broxmouth, Cromwell and Lambert saw the movement, saw that it gave them a corresponding advantage if they suddenly crossed the glen at Broxmouth, and fell upon Leslie's right wing, while his main body was entangled in the narrow ground before mentioned. The attack was immediately decided upon, and [next morning] early on the 3rd of September carried out with perfect success. The Scotch horse of the right wing were driven in confusion back upon their main body, whom they trampled under foot, and the whole army was thus rolled back upon itself in inextricable confusion."