I ;^s. 2_& PUBLICATIONS OF THE SCOTTISH HISTORY SOCIETY VOLUME XXV GENERAL ASSEMBLY COMMISSION RECORDS II December 1896 THE RECORDS OF THE COMMISSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND HOLDEN IN EDINBURGH THE YEARS 1648 and 1649 Edited from the Original Manuscript by ALEXANDER F. MITCHELL, D.D., LL.D. And JAMES CHRISTIE, D.D. EDINBURGH Printed at the University Press by T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society 1896 INTRODUCTION The state of my health during the last six months will, I trust, be accepted as a valid excuse for my not attempting to write so detailed an introduction to this volume of the Records of the Commission of the General Assembly as I wrote to the former one, and that this excuse will be accepted all the more readily when I state, that it has been mainly by my efforts to fulfil the work I had undertaken for this and a kindred society, that my health has given way. By the departure of the Scottish army from England in 1646-7, the unique influence of Scotland on England in matters of both civil and ecclesiastical policy was sadly weakened; and by the ill-starred invasion of England by the Duke of Hamilton and the adherents of the ‘Unlawful Engage- ment,’ nominally to ensure the restoration of Charles to his regal power on Covenanting terms, but really to secure his deliverance from his Sectarian jailors on terms less onerous, that influence may be said to have been finally extinguished, and the calamity the invaders sought to avert rendered all but inevitable. Not that the dim idea of such a catastrophe, as was at length hurried on, had not been previously brooding in the minds of the Army leaders, and had been resolutely adopted by them when the English Parliament, under the influence of the Presbyterian party, resolved to make one more effort to negotiate a satisfactory treaty with the King. The King, according to his usual policy, haggled on various matters on which in the end he was obliged to give way, and, on the 5th December 1648, a majority of the House of vi INTRODUCTION Commons voted ‘that the King’s offers afforded a ground of settlement.’ Then, without loss of time, the leaders of the Army ventured to assail the freedom of Parliament itself, and forcibly to exclude the chiefs of the Presbyterian party from taking their seats in the House of Commons, and the House, thus maimed, recalled its former vote, and became the obedient tool of its new masters, claiming supreme power of legislation without the concurrence of the House of Lords. One of its first acts was to give effect to what had been simmering in the minds of the army leaders for months past,1 and to declare the unfortunate monarch to have been the main cause of the late wars and bloodshed, and, maimed and overborne by a faction, as it was, to improvise a tribunal unknown to the constitution,2 for the trial and punishment of the King. The legality of this tribunal was challenged by the King, and he refused to acknowledge its authority, or to plead to the indictment before it. He was nevertheless condemned to death, 1 This is clearly implied in various parts of the ‘ Remonstrance ’ of Fairfax and his officers, though the Remonstrance itself only came out in November 1848. See especially pp. 48 ... 54. ‘ In all cases of like rebellions or civil wars, the prudence of most nations and ages (as well as the justice of the thing) has led to fix the exemplary punishment first upon the capital leader, and upon others nearest to him, and not to punish the inferiors and exempt the chiefs, so in this case it is most clear, that to fix your justice first upon the head and thereby let his successors see what themselves may expect, if they attempt the like, may hopefully discourage them . and so is like to be a real security,’ p. 50. ‘ If any . object that the grounds aforegoing . would extend, as well against any accommodation with him, since his person came into the Parliament’s power, or at least against any restitution thereupon (without his first submitting to judgment and a change of heart and principles) and, consequently, would have served as well against that accommodation with him, and restitution of him, which the Army seemed once to plead for, we shall confess it, as to the main,’ p. 51. And then in the following pages they enlarge on the reasons which moved them, which were, first. The Parliament’s engagement with Scotland for another address to him ; and second, The clause in the Solemn League and Covenant as to the preservation of the king’s person, now to be ignored. 2 ‘ The work of military violence, clothed in the merest tatters of legality . the small minority in Parliament, which had given the semblance of con- stitutional procedure to the trial in Westminster Halls, were no more than the instruments in the hands of the men of the sword.’—Gardiner’s History of the Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 1. INTRODUCTION vii and when on 30th January 1648-9, the sentence was carried out in front of his own palace of Whitehall, ‘one dismal universal groan burst from the horror-stricken crowd.’ Whatever doubt may exist as to the action or inaction of the Westminster Assembly in the case of Archbishop Laud, there can be no doubt as to the courage and promptitude with which its leaders and the Presbyterian ministers of London generally protested against the judicial murder of the King, nor as to the earnest anxiety they showed to the last to help forward any settlement of outstanding differences, which would have saved the monarchy, and afforded reasonable security for the liberties of the Parliament and the Refor- mation of the Church. But their fast friends and allies, the Scotch, had long ere this returned to their homes, and, when too late, the Presbyterians in the south learned the value of their faithful warnings, and found they were indeed at the mercy of that Sectarian Army, who were bent on securing their own ends, though these should have to be gained by over- turning the ancient constitution of the kingdom, and setting up in its room a commonwealth in name—an oligarchy1 or military despotism in fact. The committee of the Scottish Estates had instructed their Commissioners to protest against the trial of the King, and the Commissioners of the Scottish Assembly, concurring in the protest, expressed their utter detestation of ‘ so horrid a design against his Majesty’s person,’ and disclaimed all responsibility for ‘ the miseries, confusions, and calamities that might follow.’ Their deputy, Blair, minister of St. Andrews and Scottish Chaplain to the King, expressed himself as strongly on the enormity of this act as the most ardent Royalist could desire, and never ceased to speak of the unfortunate monarch in terms of warm affection and regard.2 His early interviews with Cromwell, on the 1 ‘ The oligarchy which had usurped the name of a Commonwealth.’—Gardiner’s Commonwealth,2 vol. i. p. 199. Blair’s Autobiography and Life, pp. 214, 261, ‘a good king evil-used.’ viii INTRODUCTION other hand, seem to have left on his mind impressions1 even less favourable than those which Baxter and Ussher formed from their intercourse with him. Immediately on learning that the ‘horrid design1 had actually been carried out, the Committee of the Scottish Estates caused Charles n. to be proclaimed as the lawful heir of his father in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, and sent to their Commis- sioners in London a copy of the proclamation, with a remon- strance to the House of Commons, which gave so great offence to the regicides, that they first imprisoned the Commissioners, and soon after ignominiously dismissed them from the kingdom, under the escort of a troop of horse.2 The Scotch sent deputies to invite the young King to come among them, subscribe their Covenants, and take possession of his throne. At first they were unsuccessful, but both Parliament and Church persevered in their suit, and at last prevailed on him to accept their invitation and terms. But he was far from sincere in the matter, and soon showed it was dire necessity, not hearty consent, which made him stoop to do so. Moreover, an extreme party had sprung up among themselves, who were too much in sympathy with the Sectaries of the south and too distrustful of their old Royalist countrymen. In their earnest desire to satisfy the scruples and disarm the hostility of these men, the more moderate party consented to measures which were harsh towards their sovereign, and towards many, who were really eager to forget past differences, and do their utmost to defend their native country against the formidable force which was now preparing to assail it. Fairfax, having refused to lead that force, resigned his office as Commander-in-chief, which was devolved on Cromwell, who did not share his scruples. All, that the caution and skill of experienced generals could in the circumstances effect to force him back to England, was done by the Leslies and the troops under their command. But, 1 Blair’s Autobiography and Life, p. 210, ‘ an egregious dissembler and a great liar.’ 2 See in these Minutes, pp. 229, 230, note. INTRODUCTION ix through the interference and dictation of a Committee of the Estates,1 it is said, their plans were at last thwarted, the triumph which seemed within their grasp was snatched from them, and a disaster was inflicted on the nation which was great in its immediate, and still greater in its remoter conse- quences.