THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AT ABERDEEN, 1640.

After perusing the Reports which we have given of the proceedings in the Assemblies of 1638 and 1639, and the several relative documents therewith connected, our readers, we are convinced, will agree with us, that the mere Acts, as they are technically termed, of these and similar Assemblies, convey but a faint and feeble impression of the real character of those Conventions. They are but the dry bones, as it were, of our Ecclesiastical Constitutions. It is in the circumstances attendant on their enactment; the causes in which they originated; the muniments of the period, (sometimes public and frequently long concealed); the reasonings of the antagonist parties, and incidental outbreaks of individual feeling; and, more especially, in the dramatic movements of debate in popular assemblages—that we catch the true spirit by which the more formal enactments are re-awakened in the present age, and presented to the eye and the mind of a modern student with all the vividness and force of scenes passing daily around us.

We have now reached the Acts of the Assembly 1640; but, ere we proceed to that very limited portion of our undertaking, we must be permitted to take a review of the more prominent features of the Assembly in 1639, and of the events which intervened betwixt that and the subsequent meeting in 1640.

It will be recollected that, by the Treaty of 18th June 1639, it was stipulated that all matters ecclesiastical were agreed to be settled in a General Assembly, and matters civil in the Parliament and inferior judicatories established by law. Unhappily for the King and the Covenanters, this vague and general basis was soon found to be too narrow to bear the superstructure which each party intended to rear on it; and ere the parties had retired to their several homes, the seeds of future collision were sown. No dear and precise line of distinction was drawn in the treaty, betwixt what was to be deemed ecclesiastical and what civil; and in his warrant for the proclamation by which the Assembly and Parliament of 1639 were indicted, the King, on the 29th of June, directed that all “Archbishops, Bishops, and Commissioners of Kirks,” among others, entitled to place and voice therein, should attend, as Members of the Assembly, on the 12th of August following.

This, in the estimation of the Covenanters, was tantamount to a departure from the spirit of the treaty, in which nothing was said in plain terms as to the constituent Members of that Assembly. The Covenanters could not, as the King well knew, recognise Archbishops and Bishops as legitimate Members of a General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland—the intrusion of them into the Church being all along stated as their chief and leading grievance, for the removal of which, and the oppressions thence resulting, they had taken up arms. Of this the King and his Counsellors were fully aware—and therefore his proclamation was truly the signal for a renewal of the agitations which had ostensibly been quelled. It was literally keeping his word of promise to the ear, but breaking it to the hopes of his Scottish subjects; and, accordingly, no sooner was the proclamation issued, than it was followed by the usual flood of protestations and manifestoes on all hands. No doubt Episcopacy was still the unrepealed law of Scotland, and the parties, by mutual consent, had agreed to wave all discussion as to the Assembly of 1638; yet, if the King honestly intended to leave Church matters proper, to the decision of a new General Assembly, to be afterwards considered and ratified in Parliament, he was bound to have informed the Covenanters explicitly, that the Assembly of 1639 was not to consist (as they necessarily understood) of Members chosen on the old Presbyterian platform, but of Prelates and Statesmen sent thither by virtue solely of the Royal prerogative, and who were not, in any intelligible sense, the representatives of the Scottish Church. In short, (as is proved by his correspondence with the fugitive Prelates, and other evidence,) his entering into the treaty of 18th June was a mere juggle, and his promise of a Free General Assembly a palpable fraud—his settled purpose being unquestionably to restore Prelacy whenever he could, and to render the deliberations of the promised Assembly altogether nugatory, with reference to the objects for which it was sought and agreed to.

Although the latent proofs of Charles’s duplicity were not known to the Covenanters, they found in the proclamation and other circumstances, sufficient reason for distrust; and their past experience, both of the King and his advisers, was sufficient to rouse their suspicions. Their vigilance and preparations continued unrelaxed; and so formidable was the tone of public feeling in Scotland, during the brief space which elapsed betwixt the date of the treaty and the meeting of the Assembly, that the King found it necessary to adopt a temporizing and most insidious policy. Traquair, a man of talent and consummate address, armed with the King’s secret instructions, came down to Scotland as Commissioner, and the Assembly met on the 12th of August.

It will be seen, from the foregoing report, that the Commissioner, although he hinted at some objections to Members of Assembly, stated none when called on; and thus and otherwise, he fully recognised, in the King’s name, the perfect lawfulness of the Assembly, and soon pledged himself to sanction, for his Sovereign, the Acts which it might pass, on all the vital points for which the Covenanters had so strenuously struggled—assented to the abolition of Episcopacy and all its obnoxious accompaniments in Scotland—and undertook to get these Acts ratified in Parliament. The suspicions of the Assembly were lulled by the speciousness of Traquair, (whom, however, we are not prepared to condemn so vehemently as has sometimes been done both by his coadjutors and antagonists;) and we have rarely perused the account of any scene, whether of real life or of skilful romance, with keener feelings than those excited by the detailed report of proceedings in the General Assembly on 17th August 1639. When the seemingly gracious intentions of the King were intimated by Traquair, there was a simultaneous burst of gratitude and confidence, and, in the highest sense of the words, of chivalrous loyalty. The stern men of the Covenant were melted into tears of high-minded and generous gladness. The venerable Patriarchs of the old Presbyterian Church, who had served at its unpolluted altars for half a century, and who had mourned its degradation in silent sorrow, or suffered captivity and oppressions from its temporary Lords, poured out their hearts in thanksgivings to God and the King, for these unlooked-for manifestations of royal grace and favour.

“Mr John Weymes, called on, could scarse get a word spocken for teares trickling doune along his gray haires, like droppes of rain or dew upon the toppe of the tender grasse; and yet withal, smyling for joy, said—I doe remember when the Kirk of Scotland had a beautifull face. I remember since there was a great power and life accompanying the ordinances of God, and a wonderfull worke of operation upon the hearts of people. This my eyes did see—a fearfull defection [followed] after, procured by our sinnes; and no more did I wishe, before my eyes were closed, but to have seene such a beautifull day, and that under the conduct and favour of our Kings Majestie. Blessed for ever more be our Lord and King, Jesus; and the blessing of God be upon his Majestie, and the Lord make us thankfull!”237

Such were the pathetic and touching strains in which the worthies of the olden Church received the announcement by Traquair, of the hollow and hypocritical message of which he was the herald. We do but justice to the memory of Traquair, when we give him credit for being moved by such testimonies of affectionate loyalty, and convinced that the system of dissimulation of which he was but the “echo,” was utterly impolitic and impracticable; and he acted his part with a talent and temper which we cannot but admire. He was indeed placed in “a false position,” in which no man could have done at once what patriotism and honour prompted, and yet obeyed the master whom he served, or gratified the minions of his court. Had Charles but followed out the course which the sagacity of Traquair, and the circumstances in which he was placed, chalked out in the Assembly of 1639, we verily believe that the King might long have reigned in the hearts of a loyal people, and Traquair have been remembered as one of her patriots and best benefactors. But the infatuation which overruled these arrangements, led to other and very different consequences.

In viewing these transactions, however, justice must be done to the King as well as to the Covenanters; and there is no doubt that the latter, in some particulars, deviated from the spirit and avowed purposes of the treaty. That treaty was based on a spontaneous declaration by the Covenanters, that they would yield “all civil and temporal obedience” to the King, and that all they claimed was security for their “religion and liberties, according to the ecclesiastical and civil laws” of Scotland;238 and the ambiguous terms of the treaty, when finally completed, just left the vexed question as open as it was before—What were the Ecclesiastical and what the Civil Laws of Scotland at the time? Charles held that Episcopacy was the form of Church Government settled both by the ecclesiastical and civil laws in force at the time; while the Covenanters looked back to the constitutions and enactments prior to the changes introduced by King James VI., and understood that these were to be assumed as the securities which they demanded; and hence, the treaty in fact amounted merely to a truce, which was soon destined to be broken.

The course adopted in these circumstances by Traquair and the leaders of the Covenant at the Assembly, had it been judiciously followed out, might have obviated all difficulties—viz., that the Assembly should, by a declaratory Act, indicate what the Church held to be its genuine ecclesiastical constitutions, to be afterwards submitted to and ratified by Parliament. And had nothing been done beyond their declaration as to the causes of the recent troubles, matters might have been satisfactorily adjusted. But this was not the case. Although it was clearly agreed on, that no reference should be made to the Acts of the Assembly 1638, and that nothing was to be founded on these, the Covenanters broke through this arrangement in one most essential particular—namely, with regard to the depositions and excommunications of Ministers which had taken place under its authority. Notwithstanding repeated warnings and remonstrances by Traquair, the Assembly entered upon a review of all the proceedings of the Commissions that had acted by authority of the preceding Assembly, which was virtually assuming and sanctioning the Acts of 1638; although, as stated by themselves, the King had declared he never would recognise or sanction the proceedings of that Assembly. By taking cognizance of these cases of deposition, &c., they in effect anticipated the decision of Parliament, with respect to their findings as to the constitutions of the Church, and thus inverted the proper order of procedure. They thus furnished, not merely a plausible, but a valid ground for the King to object to their whole proceedings; and although we acquit the single-hearted and zealous Presbyterian Clergy who concurred in this anomalous course, we cannot so readily forgive the Nobles and other laymen who were parties to the negociations, and who have left on record their own statements, that the Acts of the Assembly of 1638, were to be held as in a state of abeyance in that of the following year.

In this particular, therefore, it appears the Covenanters were clearly to blame, independently altogether of the unsound nature of the proceedings of the Commissions, and the venial accusations against many of the deposed Ministers, many of whom were constrained, by operating on their fears and other grovelling feelings, to acquiesce in decisions which they could not resist, and to profess submission, when in their hearts and consciences they could not be supposed, honestly, to yield it. It is impossible to read the details about some scores of these poor men, without pain and reprobation; and the vindictive spirit in which they were treated ought to be a warning, in all future times, against a rash submission to high pretensions in popular ecclesiastical courts. Many were deposed on very questionable grounds, and others were left for the administration of what was called “mercy,” on condition of renouncing all their previous convictions and professions, and their sense of allegiance to the monarch and statute law of the land. That some were unworthy may be admitted; but trial in their absence, upon nice points of metaphysical theology, and by means of evidence of very questionable credibility, is, to say the least of it, a characteristic of the Assembly of 1639, which reflects but little credit on its charity or its justice.

We must be permitted further to remark, that the soreness and ferocity which were indicated by that Assembly in reference to the “Large Declaration,” or Manifesto, afford but slender proofs of magnanimity or conscious rectitude. That work was known to be the production of Balcanquel; and, after a minute examination of it, an elaborate report on its mis-statements was read, when the following colloquy took place.239

“The Moderatour desired some of the brethren to give their judgment of the said Booke.

“Mr Andro Cant said—It is [so] full of grosse absurdities, that I thinke hanging of the author should prevent all other censures.

“The Moderatour answered—That punishment is not in the hands of Kirkmen.

“The Shireff of Teviotdaill [Douglas of Cavers], being asked his judgment, said—Ye were offendit with a churchmans hard sentence alreadie; but, truelie, I could execute that sentence with all my heart, becaus it is more propper to me, and I am better acquainted with hanging.

“My Lord Kirkcudbright said—It is a great pittie that many honest men in Christendome, for writing little bookes called pamphlets, should want eares; and false knaves, for writing such volumes, should brooke heads.”

These “random ebullitions” require no commentary; but in such manifestations of character we discover that spirit of fanatical intolerance, which at no distant period, involved the two British kingdoms in all the horrors of civil war—consigned their Sovereign to the block—rent the Church of Scotland into two ferocious factions, and finally subjected it to contumely and extinction at the hands of a canting usurper.

There is another point in these proceedings which must ever excite regret and reprehension—we mean that act by which they sought and obtained the Commissioner’s sanction, and that of the Privy Council, to a compulsory subscription to the Covenant. “This ordinance,” says Dr Cook, in his History of the Church of Scotland,240 “so popular throughout the kingdom, was, in fact, an engine of severe persecution. It required, by authority, from all ranks of men, and particularly from those whose opinions were suspected, subscription to a number of propositions, about which multitudes must have been totally ignorant, and to maxims respecting ecclesiastical polity, which it is impossible to suppose were not condemned by numbers, who, having for many years lived in communion with an Episcopal Church, could not be persuaded that such a Church was unlawful. So long as signing the Covenant was a voluntary expression of attachment to a particular cause, much might have been said in its justification. But now, when it was required by an Act of Council and the Church, which it was dangerous to disobey—now that it could be forced by the zealots of a sect upon all whom they chose to harass—it must be abhorred as occasioning, to the conscientious part of the community, much wretchedness, and as calculated to diffuse that relaxation of principle which is the bitter fruit of every deviation from the tolerant spirit of pure religion.”

Concurring as we do most cordially in these just and enlightened views, we need only add, that no man will defend this blot in the escutcheon of the Covenanters, who would not, if he had the power, imitate their example.

Before finally taking leave of the Assembly of 1639, we cannot overlook the fact, that, in all the proceedings, either in it or in that of the preceding year, or in the voluminous details of grievances of which they complained, we can find no trace whatever of lay patronage being regarded or even mentioned as one of the number. It is equally remarkable, too, that both Henderson and Dickson repeatedly state the doctrine of the lawfulness of civil interference in matters ecclesiastical; and that the notions which, at a subsequent period, sprung up and distracted and divided the Church, as to the anti-scriptural nature of lay patronage, and about the independence and inherent power of an established Church, (established too on certain precise and definite terms), do not appear at that time to have been either agitated or even mooted. We merely note the circumstance as an historical fact, without at all entering on a controversy in the matter. But certainly the eager desire, manifested incessantly, for a ratification of the ecclesiastical constitutions by the civil authority, emphatically implied, that, without such sanction, these applicants did not regard their own Acts as sufficient to clothe them with complete authority.

The day after the Assembly dissolved, being the 30th of August 1639, the Parliament—which had been prorogued, from time to time, to the 31st of that month—convened, and was opened with all the state of the ancient “Ryding of Parliament.” A preliminary difficulty, however, occurred to its constitution, in consequence of the absence of the Prelates, who, by the subsisting laws and usages of Parliament, formed a component part of it. Prelacy had been abolished by an Act of Assembly, but that was not yet ratified by Parliament; and, in order to supply the place of the Bishops as one of the Estates, it was agreed that, for the present, the Commissioner should, in their stead, select eight of the Nobles to be among the Lords of the Articles; being a committee to digest all business for the consideration, and adoption, or rejection of the whole house. The Earl of Argyle entered a protestation that the present mode of choosing the Lords of the Articles should be no precedent for the future; and intimated in it an innovation on the future constitution of Parliament, by introducing a different mode of naming the Lords of the Articles from that which had heretofore obtained—namely, by excluding the nomination of the Crown or its Commissioner, and giving to the Lords, Barons, and Burgesses the nomination from their several bodies. This initial difficulty being overcome, the Commissioner, on the 6th of September, signed the Covenant—not as Commissioner, but as Treasurer; and on the same day a Bill for the ratification of the Act of Assembly 17th August, anent the bygone evils of the Church, and the Supplication against Dr Balcanquel, were passed in the Articles; while a Petition, presented by the Commissioner, in favour of the ousted Ministers, was refused; and a Bill for rescinding the Acts in favour of Episcopacy was handed to the Lord Advocate, to be revised: and all this passed amidst a profusion of protestations, which it is unnecessary to notice.

On the 11th of September, there was a warm debate on the proposal to bring down the vengeance of Parliament on Balcanquel and his “Large Declaration,” in which Traquair resisted it as offensive to the King, while Argyle and Rothes supported the vindictive Petition from the Assembly; but the Acts as to the constitution of Parliament, &c., made some advance; and Baillie, in a letter dated October 12, gives a very striking picture of the condition to which the contending parties had reduced themselves. “The affairs of our Parliament,” (says he, vol. i, p. 188,) “goes but this and that way, if we look to men; our estate is but yet wavering up and down in the scales of a very dubious event. Our main Acts are but scarce past the Articles. The Commissioner either threatens to rise, or to protest in the day of the riding, or to make declarations equivalent to protestations, or to deny the sceptre to our most substantial desires. To preveen this, we have been content to sit still, half-idle, thrice so long time as ever any Parliament in our land did continue, waiting till posts upon posts, running up and down, for carrying to us the Kings pleasure. It seems our enemies credit is not yet extinguished at Court. The Castle of Edinburgh is daily made stronger. From London, the other week, arrived at Dumbarton a great ship, with cannon and other munition, with an English captain, and divers English soldiers. Division is much laboured for in all our estate. They speak of too great prevailing with our Nobles. Hume evidently fallen off; Montrose not unlike to be ensnared with the fair promises of advancement; Marischal, Sutherland, and others, somewhat doubted; Sheriff of Teviotdale, and some of the Barons, inclining the Court-way. Divisions betwixt the merchants and Crafts of Edinburgh; and so, by consequence, of all the Burghs in Scotland, carefully fostered by our Commissioner; our prime Clergy like to fall foul upon the question of our new private meetings.”

In this state of distraction and doubt, matters continued—the views and sentiments of the King having been sufficiently indicated in his letters to Traquair, whose policy was, of course, guided by his Master’s orders. On the 24th of September, an Act for rescinding all the Acts in favour of Episcopacy was voted and passed in the Articles, under a protestation by the Commissioner against that or any others prejudicial to his Majesty’s authority; and the Act as to the constitution of the Parliament was also passed. While matters were thus agitated and protracted; the Parliament was continued on the 24th October till the 14th of November, when the Lord Advocate presented a royal warrant for proroguing it till the 2d of June 1640, the Covenanters entering their protestation.241 Thus the King baffled all the hopes of the Covenanting party, of obtaining a ratification of their favourite ecclesiastical degrees—a result attributable, no doubt, in a great measure, to the extreme violence of some of their propositions, of which the King availed himself by stating, as the ground of adjournment, that various things had been propounded which trenched on his civil authority and government.242

This step could not fail to startle and exasperate the Covenanters, more especially as their deputies, (the Earl of Dunfermline and Lord Loudon,) who had been sent off to Court after the prorogation on 14th November, had been dismissed contemptuously, without ever being admitted to an audience of the King. When the King sent orders for the prorogation, which took place of that date, he also ordered Traquair up to London, to give an account personally of all the recent proceedings in Scotland. He was coldly received, in consequence of the concessions he had made, and his signing the Covenant. He was accused by the Covenanters of inciting the King to a new war, and is alleged to have made his peace by doing so; but, although this is stated by Burnet and others, we have never seen any evidence to substantiate the charge; and it is more probable that his best (as in truth it was his only) apology for the part he had acted, was, that he had no alternative but to yield to the dominant party, both in the Assembly and Scottish Parliament, or at once commit the King in open hostility with his northern subjects. Indeed, it seems utterly impossible that he, or any man, could have obeyed his instructions without at the same time outraging the whole policy and passions of the Covenanters, and precipitating another open revolt, before the King could have made any preparations to encounter its force. He had, however, obtained possession of a letter from the leaders of the Covenant, addressed to the King of France, soliciting protection and assistance—a document which, it appeared afterwards, had never been sent or perfected; and this document, as in duty bound, he produced to his Sovereign, as a proof of the treasonable purposes of the Covenanters. It is quite possible that, with such apparently good evidence in his possession, he might have represented to the King that nothing but force would curb the ambitious views of the Covenanting Nobles and Barons; but, in so doing, had it even been so, we cannot discover any rational ground for the inveterate hostility subsequently shewn to Traquair and Hamilton as incendiaries; for, whether the letter was or was not sent, it evinced the treasonable purpose which was cherished, of soliciting the assistance of a foreign potentate, for the accomplishment of their purposes; and both Traquair and Hamilton were bound, as loyal subjects, to make the fact known to the King, and to give him such advice as their opportunities of observation enabled them to afford.

Be this as it may, however, the Covenanters transmitted another petition to the King, by a person named Cuningham, requesting permission to send some of their number to Court to vindicate their proceedings. This the King granted, and Loudon and Dunfermline were again dispatched, on the 31st of January, for this purpose. On the 2d of March, (1640,) these Deputies got notice that the King would receive them next day in the Council Chamber; and, on that occasion, Loudon made an elaborate exposition of all the Scottish grievances, which, with the King’s counter Declaration, are too long for insertion in this work; but the curious reader will find them both embodied in Rushworth’s Collections.243 Several other audiences were given, at the last of which (18th March) the King and Council declared that the Deputies had no sufficient authority to demand a ratification of the Acts of the preceding Assembly. On the 11th of April a warrant was given to Adams, one of the Sheriffs of London, to take Loudon into custody; and he was subsequently committed to the Tower, on a charge of high treason, for his participation in the letter above alluded to; and he was not liberated thence till the 27th of June following, upon certain conditions which were not very creditable to either of the parties.244

Of this transaction, there can, we think, be but one opinion among all honourable men. Whatever might be Loudon’s demerits as regarded the letter to the King of France, he went to England under the guarantee of a Royal protection; and he was not amenable to any tribunal in England, as a Scottish subject, for an imputed offence committed in Scotland. He pleaded this, and the acts of pacification and indemnity which had followed. It appeared, too, that the act of treason had never been consummated by transmission of the letter; and he offered himself for trial in Scotland. The King was saved the infamy of carrying his original purpose into execution by a trial in England, in consequence of the interposition of Hamilton, who represented the serious consequences which would ensue. But we must now turn to the movements in Scotland subsequently to the prorogation of its Parliament in November preceding.

The finances of the King having been exhausted by the useless parade on the Borders during the preceding summer, and a renewal of the war having been resolved on by his Majesty and “The Junto,” as it was termed, in whose advice he confided, (Canterbury, Strafford, Hamilton, and Morton,) Charles was constrained to have recourse to a Parliament in England. This was reluctantly adopted, as the only means by which the sinews of war could be provided—and was the first that had been called by the King during the space of twelve years, in the course of which he had managed to carry on a perilous system of government, by levying taxes in virtue of the prerogative, and other devices, which ultimately led to his ruin. A Parliament having been summoned in England, and the warlike purposes of the King having speedily been manifested, these things could not long escape the vigilance of the Scottish leaders; and a meeting of the Nobles, Gentry, and Ministers was summoned at Edinburgh on the 10th of March; when, with their wonted energy, they resolved to levy an army, to fortify all the strengths of which they could obtain possession, and to raise the requisite funds for the purpose, both by voluntary contributions and taxes; and such was the enthusiasm of the people, that plate, jewels, and whatever wealth a poor country could supply, were cheerfully poured into the coffers of the insurgents. The banner of “The Covenant” was once more unfurled, and the pulpits of the clergy again resounded with ardent exhortations to rally round it.

Meanwhile, the proceedings in England tended materially to promote the views of the Scottish leaders. Before the Parliament was assembled, the discontents of the English—which were mightily strengthened by the success of the Scottish insurrection of the previous summer—had attained a pitch of consistency and force, which was extremely favourable to their northern neighbours, who were further encouraged by a forged promise of support, apparently by some of the most influential English nobility. And the issue of the first Session of the English Parliament contributed powerfully to promote the cause of insurrection in Scotland—the discontents and movements in both kingdoms naturally acting and reacting on each other as incentives to resistance to the “kingly way” of government, which Charles endeavoured, so unfortunately for himself and his country, to carry on. The King had urgently pleaded for supplies from his English subjects to carry on the war against the Scotch, whom he represented as bent on the utter subversion of the monarchy. But the English House of Commons would not grant any supplies without a previous redress of their own grievances; and, finding them inflexible on this point, he had again recourse to his former practice of dissolving the Parliament, on the 13th of April.

The embarrassments of Charles, in consequence of this sturdy refusal of his English subjects to support him, were infinite; and, resorting to all his accustomed modes of raising men and money for the impending war, these were only aggravated by the means which he adopted to supply the want of subsidies. His army had been completely dislocated and disbanded; and many who had joined his standard the previous year, were now marshalled in the ranks of opposition; while the general dissatisfaction of the country, rendered all his exertions, and the voluntary contributions of those who still adhered to and supported him, altogether inadequate to the exigency of his affairs.

The Scottish leaders, when they dissolved their army in June 1639, had taken the precaution to secure the future services of the veteran officers whom they had employed on that occasion, should those services be required; and the troops, though dispersed in their several localities, were warned to be in readiness for another muster, perhaps at no remote period. When the tocsin was again sounded, therefore, the Scottish army was speedily re-organized under their old commander, Leslie; and it was already re-established in a condition fit for action, while the King was struggling hopelessly with his financial difficulties and the discontents of his English subjects.

The 2d of June, to which the Scottish Parliament had been prorogued, at length arrived; and although another commission for a further prorogation to July was sent down, some technical difficulty in communicating it to the States, furnished a reason for this not being done; and they readily availed themselves of what was really a quibble, to disregard the commission for adjournment, and declared themselves a lawful Parliament, in which they proceeded to enact into laws, all the Bills which had been introduced previous to the former prorogation. Ruthven, who commanded in Edinburgh Castle, and refused to surrender it, was forfeited, and a great Committee of Estates named, with sovereign authority to direct all matters civil and military. That Committee, as usual, opened diplomatic communications with the King through Lord Lanerick, the new Secretary for Scotland, to which it is needless to refer particularly, as these communications are given among the annexed documents; and, in short, the people of Scotland once more stood in an attitude of open hostility to their King.

While matters were in this position, and amidst general preparations for war, the 28th of July arrived, being the time appointed for the meeting of the General Assembly at Aberdeen. No Commissioner was appointed by the King; but, after waiting one day for a Commissioner, (should one have been named,) they proceeded, according to their own views of “the liberties of the Kirk,” to business; but did nothing that is worthy of remark at present. And here we pause in our introductory narrative, to be prosecuted with more spirit-stirring matter, when we reach the date at which it may be suitably resumed, postponing some of the earlier military operations, till we give them all in connection.

We shall, therefore, only further note that, previously to this meeting of Assembly, the seeds of disunion were sown in the Church by a miserable controversy among the Covenanters themselves, about private meetings for devotional purposes, which some of the leading men in the Church countenanced and others reprobated—a schism which was agitated at the Aberdeen Assembly, and at a future period increased, till the Presbyterian Church was divided into two furious factions, denouncing, excommunicating, and persecuting each other. For the nature and particulars of this schism, we refer to Baillie, in which these are given with his characteristic naivete and frankness.245