his character appears to be changed. From being so timid that he skulked from the battle-field, he now looked forward to his fate with the most perfect composure; and when we visit his dungeon, we feel ourselves in the presence of the martyr about to die for his religion, and not of the rebel about to suffer for his crimes. When going to the scaffold, he remarked, "I could die like a Roman, but I choose rather to die like a Christian ;" and like a Christian he did die.1

But justice was not yet appeased, and another life must be taken. James Guthrie, the minister of Stirling, was brought up for trial on the 20th of February, charged with high treason. He was accused of taking a leading part in the western Remonstrance; of publishing a seditious book, entitled "The Causes of God's Wrath;" of writing and subscribing a paper, called "The Humble Petition" of the 23d of August last; of convocating the king's lieges on several occasions, without warrant or authority; and of declining the king as his judge in regard to sentiments uttered in the pulpit. For these things he was condemned to die. It was a cruel sentence. Guthrie certainly held extreme opinions in religious matters, and a man's religion in those days was not different from his politics; but surely he had done nothing worthy of death. One thing, however, he had done, which may be the secret of his end: he had pronounced a sentence of excommunication on Middleton, and it was thought by many that private malice had sharpened the edge of public justice. Guthrie died as became him. He addressed the crowd for an hour from the ladder, and took God to record that he would not exchange his scaffold for the palace and mitre of the greatest prelate in Britain.2 The vindictiveness of the apostate government of Charles has exalted the mere fanatic into a hero, and given him a place in history which otherwise he does not deserve.3

The manes of the dead Charles and the wounded honour of the living one had now had two victims sacrificed to them —one of the leading nobles, and one of the leading ministers. It seemed as if it had been designed to strike terror into all

1 Crookshank's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 81-90. See also "Napthali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland," Wodrow, Kirkton, &c.

Napthali, p. 222. Wodrow.

66

3 Baillie's Letters, &c., vol. iv. p. 467. the more sensible men of his own day. yet many were grieved to see a minister so

It was thus he was regarded by Though few approved his way, severely used.'

by these two terrible examples. But still another life was taken. One Govan was hanged at the same time as Guthrie. He was charged with being on the scaffold when Charles was beheaded; but this he is said to have clearly disproved. He had, however, borne arms with the Remonstrants, and that was enough. His fate exhibits the caprices of fortune in the midst of anarchy. "The Commissioner and I," said he, when standing under the gibbet, "went out to the fields together for one cause. I have now the cord about my neck, and he is promoted to be his Majesty's Commissioner; yet for a thousand worlds I would not change lots with him!"1

It is probable that Samuel Rutherford would have shared the fate of Guthrie had not death anticipated the hangman. His "Lex Rex" was burned by the hands of the executioner. Patrick Gillespie was saved by powerful friends and humiliating retractations.2 Other ministers were driven from their parishes, or cast into prison, or banished the kingdom, and none knew but that his turn might come next. It was upon

the Remonstrant and Protesting party that the blow fell heaviest, for they had held the most violent opinions. A bribe, however, could do much. The Lord Advocate was notoriously open to corruption; and a purse of gold, seasonably presented, had a magic power in averting a prosecution.3

Something must now be done toward settling the government of the Church. The parliament had left this matter in the hands of the king, and the king took the opinion of such of his Scotch counsellors as were then in London. It was important to ascertain the feelings of the nation. Middleton declared that the larger and more intelligent portion of the community were in favour of Episcopacy; Sharp, who had now ratted, declared that none but the Protesters were against it; Lauderdale, on the other hand, assured the king that the national prejudice against it was still very strong, and that he would do well to be cautious, if he would retain the affections of his Scottish subjects. He recommended delay. The Earl of Crawford recommended that the attempt to introduce Episcopacy should be abandoned for ever. The Earl of 1 Wodrow, vol. i.

2 "Mr Rutherford, had not death prevented, was in the same hazard. Mr Gillespie had gone the same gate, had not his friends persuaded him to recant his Remonstrance, Protestation, compliance with the English, and to petition the king and parliament for mercy," &c. (Baillie's Letters, &c., vol. iv. p. 467.)

3 Kirkton's History.

Clarendon and the Duke of Ormonde, unfortunately, took the side of Sharp, and argued that it would be difficult to maintain Episcopacy in Ireland if Presbytery were continued in Scotland. Their arguments fell in with the king's humour, who had forgotten his subscription to the Covenant, and the many solemn promises he had given to maintain Presbytery, but who still had some unpleasant reminiscences of his sojourn among the Presbyterians. It was resolved that the thing should be done immediately. The throne was strong; the loyalty of the nation was strong; and turbulent spirits would be kept in awe by the recent executions of Guthrie and Argyll, and the ominous fact that no act of indemnity had yet been passed.

On the 5th of September the Lord Chancellor presented to the Scottish Privy Council a letter from his Majesty, referring to ecclesiastical affairs. It began—" Whereas, in the month of August 1660, we did, by our letter to the Presbytery of Edinburgh, declare our purpose to maintain the government of the Church of Scotland settled by law; and our parliament having since that time not only rescinded all the acts since the troubles began referring to that government, but also declared all those pretended parliaments null and void, and left to us the settling and securing of Church government; therefore we have, after mature deliberation, declared to those of your Council here our firm resolution to interpose our royal authority for restoring of that Church to its right government by bishops, as it was by law before the late troubles, during the reigns of our royal father and grandfather of blessed memory, and as it now stands settled by law." 2 A more unblushing composition never proceeded from a royal pen. The king, if now resolved to force Episcopacy upon the nation, should have been discreetly silent in regard to his letter to the Presbytery of Edinburgh. In that letter he either promised to establish Presbytery or he did not. If he did, why should he now, by a low juggle, attempt to put a different meaning upon it? If he did not, why should he have used language so

1 Burnet's History, vol. i. pp. 142, 143. account of this matter. (See his History.) 2 Wodrow's History, vol. i. p. 230.

"2

M'Kenzie gives a similar

The following extract of a letter from the Earl of Lauderdale to Robert Douglas, dated 23d October 1660, seems to make it quite certain that the king did not at first intend to meddle with Presbytery: :-"As to the concerns of our Mother Kirk," says Lauderdale, "I can only promise my faithful endeavours in what be for our good; and, indeed, it is no small comfort to me, in serving my master, to find that his Majesty is so

capable of misconstruction? Why should he have promised a General Assembly? Why should he have promised to send for Douglas? Did he doubt the construction which the Presbytery of Edinburgh had put upon it, when they enclosed it in a silver shrine, and with grateful hearts wrote him a letter of thanks; and could he now contemplate with satisfaction the cheat he had put upon them? The whole transaction gives a full revelation of the unprincipled character of the man.

The Privy Council framed an act echoing the royal letter; this was proclaimed at the market-cross, amidst the flourish of trumpets,1 and the deed was done which for the next twentyseven years was to let loose upon unhappy Scotland all the horrors of persecution. Had the king been wise, he would have given to Scotland the church polity which its people loved; and he would have seen then, what has since been abundantly proved, that Presbytery is perfectly compatible with monarchy. The fever of the first Covenanting period had abated, the delirium was gone, and Douglas and his brethren were exhibiting a moderation of sentiment which would have avoided the excesses of which Presbytery had sometimes been guilty, and ensured peace to the people and stability to the throne. There would have been a Church embracing the nation, in which the doctrine of passive obedience might not have been preached, but in which a warm loyalty would certainly be cherished. But instead of attaching to himself the ardour of Presbytery, Charles stung it into antagonism, and set up a form of polity which the people from their cradle had been taught to believe was no better than Popery.

The old race of bishops had died out. Only Sydserf remained. It was needful, therefore, that new bishops should be found. Up to this period Sharp had kept his

fixt in his resolution not to alter anything in the government of that Church; of this you may be confident, though I dare not answer but that some would be willing enough to have it otherwise. I dare not doubt of the honest ministers continuing in giving constant testimonies of their duty to the king (and your letter confirms me in giving these hopes); and they doing their duty I dare answer for the king, having of late had full contentment in discoursing with his Majesty on that subject. His Majesty hath told me that he intends to call a General Assembly, and I have drawn a proclamation for that purpose, but the day is not yet resolved on. The proclamation shall, I think, come down with my Lord Treasurer, who says he will take journey this week." (This letter will be found in the Memoir of Baillie attached to the Bannatyne Edition of his Letters and Journals.)

1 Wodrow's History, vol. i. p. 231.

secret, though there is reason to believe that even when he was acting in London as the agent of the Resolutioners he had pledged himself to Prelacy. He now threw off his disguise. He called upon Douglas, and told him that the king was anxious he should accept the Archbishopric of St Andrews. Douglas replied that he would have nothing to do with it. After some further conversation, Sharp rose to leave, and Douglas accompanied him to the door. "James," said the incorruptible to the corrupted, at parting, "I see you will engage, I perceive you are clear, you will be Bishop of St Andrews; take it, and the curse of God with it!" So saying, he shut the door upon him.1 This Robert Douglas was one of the most remarkable men of the day. He had served as a chaplain in the army of Gustavus Adolphus, and on leaving, the great king had remarked of him that he had so much prudence that he might be counsellor to any prince in Europe, and so much military skill that he would freely. entrust his whole army to his conduct. At this time he was the man of the greatest influence among the moderate party in the Church. He had been moderator of the Assembly, and preached the sermon at the coronation of the king. He was, moreover, of a peculiarly noble presence; and the interest attached to his person was increased by mysterious whispers (no doubt unfounded) that he was the grandson of George Douglas of Lochleven, and that his grandmother was the captive queen. It was felt that if he were gained the cause was won. Something more was necessary than to find the men. The apostolical succession had been lost, and it must be restored : the ministerial character had ceased to exist in Scotland, and it must be sought for elsewhere. Once before had England bestowed upon her sister country this great boon, and she must do it again. In the month of December Sharp, Fairfowl, Hamilton, and Leighton met in London, to receive episcopal consecration. They were all Presbyterian ministers. We are already, in some measure, acquainted with Sharp. He was a man of some learning; but his chief characteristic was the caution with which he formed his opinions, and the industry with which he followed them out. Fairfowl is described as a facetious man, ready to turn everything into a joke. He was reproached with having signed the Covenant against his conscience. There are some very good 1 Kirkton's History, p. 135. See also Douglas's Letter in Wodrow,

vol. i. p. 228.