with the sacredness of an oath, in order to frame a political bond; and by this unhallowed expedient they forfeited the protection of Him whose Covenant they thus profaned. They ought to have remembered that the Covenant of 1638, which had proved an ark of safety in a not less stormy sea of troubles, was sacredly guarded, as far as possible, from being subscribed by any of whose purity of character and devotion to the cause suspicions were entertained. The one party, in short, viewed all political and national transactions through the clear medium of religion, and therefore saw them in their true character and aspect: the other viewed religion itself through the turbid and warping medium of political expediency, and therefore saw neither religion nor politics in their true nature, bearing, value, and reciprocal influences. It may be that the strictly religious party were too rigidly severe; but unquestionably their error was immeasurably less than that of those who, following the suggestions of shortsighted human policy, urged upon the king an oath, which for him to take was perjury in the very act, and the inevitable consequences of which were an impious mockery of Heaven, and the putting of power into the hands of men by whom it was certain to be abused.

When Cromwell approached Edinburgh he was confronted by the Scottish army under the command of David Leslie; and so skilful were the movements of Leslie, that Cromwell found it impossible either to draw him to a battle, or to produce any impression on his lines. The English general was constrained to retire, and was placed in the utmost peril by the masterly position taken up by the Scottish army near Dunbar. But urged by the importunities of the committee of estates, Leslie descended from his commanding position; and before his army had recovered from the confusion of this ill-timed movement, it was assailed by Cromwell, thrown into disorder, and completely routed. This disastrous battle was fought on the 3d of September 1650.

The shattered Scottish army rallied at Stirling, while Cromwell advanced deliberately, securing his conquest as he moved. Soon after this disastrous conflict a measure was proposed in the Scottish parliament, which had the effect of completely rending asunder the strength of the kingdom. This was the proposal to modify or rescind the Act of Classes, so as to admit to the army those who had been by that act declared incapable of public service, and by that means to repair the loss incurred by the battle of Dunbar. The difficulty was to procure the consent of the Church to this repeal; for since many of the malignants, as they were termed, had been excommunicated, and since, by the law of the land, no excommunicated person could be employed in public service, it was necessary to have the excommunication taken off before the parliament could grant them re-admission. But the Church was by no means satisfied that such men would form any real accession of strength, though they would swell the numerical forces of the kingdom. About the same time a considerable body of troops was raised in the western counties, composed chiefly of men whose opinions coincided with those of the strictly religious Covenanters. A long and pointed remonstrance, written by P. Gillespie, was addressed by them to the committee of estates, censuring their rashness in admitting the king to desecrate the Covenant by swearing contrary to his known intentions-"teaching his majesty dissimulation and outward compliance, rather than any cordial conjunction with the cause and covenants;" and charging this and similar violations of their vows

This

as the cause of the nation's heavy calamities. western remonstrance gave great offence to the prudent politicians of both Church and State. A meeting of the committee of estates soon afterwards, at Stirling, was induced to censure this remonstrance; and in December, at Perth, an ensnaring question was put to a very thin meeting of the Commission of Assembly, respecting what persons should be permitted to rise in arms and join the forces of the kingdom against the invaders. In answer to this, the Commission passed two resolutions favourable to the admission of all fencible persons in a time of such great and evident necessity, with the exception of excommunicated and profane persons, and of such as were professed enemies and opponents of the Covenant. Instantly the parliament, without regarding the exceptions, passed an act rescinding the Act of Classes, and throwing open all places of public trust and power to the malignants, upon their making such professions of regret for past misconduct as such persons made no scruple of doing, without entertaining the remotest intention of any change for the future. *

These resolutions were openly condemned by J. Guthrie and his colleague David Bennet, both from the pulpit and in a letter to the Commission, in which they protested against the recent resolutions, which were, in their view, a sinful junction with the malignants. From this time forward the two parties in the Church were known by the names of Resolutioners and Protesters; the former being those who were carried away by secular and prudential views of expediency; the latter, the uncompromising adherents of the Covenant. Many of the Resolutioners were men of great piety and worth, but somewhat deficient in firmness and decision of character; lovers of peace to such an extent, as to be willing to sacrifice some of their own principles for its attainment. Of these David Dickson was one; but some years afterwards, when the perfidy of Charles and the malignants had become evident, he, on his death-bed, acknowledged his error, and admitted that the Protesters had seen these matters in a truer light than the Resolutioners had done. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that the Protesters injured their own good cause by the somewhat intemperate vehemence of their proceedings.

[1651.] The repeal of the Act of Classes had greatly increased the number of the adherents of Charles; and it was determined to delay his coronation no longer. Accordingly he was publicly crowned at Scoon on the 1st of January 1651. A sermon was preached before the ceremony by Robert Douglas; and the erown was placed on his head by the Marquis of Argyle. The National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant were then read, and the king solemnly swore to observe and keep them both. The oath to defend and support the Church of Scotland was then administered to him; and kneeling and holding up his right hand, he uttered the following awful vow: By the Eternal and Almighty God, who liveth and reigneth for ever, I shall observe and keep all that is contained in this oath!"

Following up their policy, they endeavoured to suppress all opposition; and ordered Guthrie and Bennet to repair to Perth, and answer to the king and the committee of estates for their having dared to preach against the resolutions, and for their letter to the Commission. They appeared; but it was to give in a declinature of his majesty and the council as proper judges of doctrine and of the discharge of duties strictly ministerial. They were restricted to Perth and Dundee for

*Balfour's Annales.

a short time; but however willing to wound, their antagonists were as yet afraid to strike, and the prosecution was allowed to drop.*

An Assembly was appointed to meet at St Andrews in July, whence it was transferred to Dundee; but intimation was at the same time given, that all who were not satisfied with the resolutions should be cited to the General Assembly, as liable to censure. This rendered the Protesters incapable of being members, was a virtual prejudging of the question between them and their brethren, and completely vitiated the character of the Assembly as a deliberative body. Against this course of procedure the Protesters again protested, denying the freedom and lawfulness of the Assembly itself. For this, James Guthrie, Patrick Gillespie, and James Simpson were deposed; but, protesting against this sentence, they continued to discharge their ministerial functions.† The small western army was suppressed by Cromwell without difficulty; and Strachan, one of its leaders, a man of unstable mind, joined the usurper. While in Glasgow, Cromwell attended the churches of some of the Presbyterian ministers, who did not hesitate to pray for the king, and to term the protector a usurper to his face. Some of his Independent preachers held a disputation in his presence with the Presbyterian ministers, on the principles of church government, to which that singular man listened with great apparent interest. It is probable that the protector's intention in thus entering into personal and familiar contact with the people, and especially with the ministers of Scotland, was for the purpose of obtaining the means of forming his opinion respecting their character and principles on the sure ground of his own penetrating discernment. He knew that the king and his party could not be trusted; and he was anxious to ascertain whether the other party, though opposed to him in many points, might not be so far conciliated as to submit peacefully to his government when they should perceive resistance to be hopeless. That this was the real design of Cromwell, it would be hazardous to affirm; but the conjecture has this to recommend it, that it completely accounts for the conduct of that deep-thinking and far-seeing man, during his stay in Scotland, and after his return to England, in his public treatment of the former country. Having made his observations, and formed his plans, Cromwell proceeded to put them in execution.

Charles had taken up a strong position in the vicinity of Stirling, which the protector perceived it would be dangerous to assail. He therefore turned the position of the king's army by crossing the Frith at Queensferry; and marching northwards, seized upon Perth, and cut the king off from his supplies. Charles resolved upon a daring and desperate attempt to gain or lose the whole kingdom. He broke up from his camp at Stirling, and marched with all the expedition in his power into England, hoping that the royalists there would rise and join him before Cromwell could approach. But they were too much dispirited to make the attempt; and Charles was overtaken and defeated at Worcester, on the 3d of September 1651, exactly a year after the battle of Dunbar. The king fled, and, after a number of perilous adventures, escaped to France, to mourn his blighted hopes, or rather to waste his unhonoured youth in dissipation and licentiousness. Cromwell did not think it necessary to return to complete the subjugation of Scotland, but left that task, no longer a difficult one, to General Monk.

[1652.] The unhappy contest between the Resolu* Cruickshank, vol. i. p. 63. + Lamont's Diary, p. 40.

tioners and the Protesters continued to divide the Church so completely, that it no longer presented a rallying point for either of the political parties. The Resolutioners were the more numerous; but the Protesters were favoured by the English, so that their power remained nearly balanced. An Assembly was attempted to be held at Edinburgh in July 1652, the Resolutioners assuming the right of calling, constituting, and conducting it, which was opposed by the Protesters, with a new protestation, subscribed by sixty-five ministers and about eighty elders. After spending about a fortnight in useless altercations, it dissolved, and its acts were not recorded.*

[1653.] Another attempt was made to hold an Assembly at Edinburgh in July 1653, but LieutenantColonel Cottrel, at the head of a body of troops, entered the house where the ministers were assembled, demanded on whose authority they met,-whether that of Charles or the protector? and, after the interchange of a few sentences with the moderator, Mr D. Dickson, ordered them to leave the house, led them through the streets surrounded by a band of soldiers, till he had conducted them a mile out of town; and then commanded them to depart to their respective homes within the course of a day, otherwise they should be held guilty of a breach of the peace, and liable to punishment. In this manner was the General Assembly also laid prostrate beneath the power of the iron-handed ruler of the English Commonwealth.+

No further violence was used by Cromwell against the Church of Scotland. Some of the Resolutioners were exposed to danger, because they would not cease to pray for the king; but no force was used to prevent them, and no punishments were inflicted. Synods and presbyteries continued to hold their meetings as formerly, subject to an occasional visit from some of those strange enthusiasts who abounded in the English army, and were equally disposed for polemical as for military contests. The contentions, meanwhile, between the Resolutioners and the Protesters continued to rage with unabated bitterness, although with much less pernicious results than would have taken place had the Assembly been regularly meeting from year to year. In that case, this schism, the first which had taken place in the Church of Scotland since the Reformation, must have led to the positive expulsion of the weaker party, and thereby to an incurable division in the Presbyterian Church. As it was, amid all their contests, they were perpetually holding meetings to treat of a termination to their unseemly strife, and the formation of a brotherly union. Yet there was a constant endeavour by each party to increase its own strength by every practicable method, and to weaken its antagonist. In this the Protesters were more successful than their opponents. Patrick Gillespie was appointed to the principalship of Glasgow College, where his influence had a strong effect in drawing the students and young preachers to espouse his party. Rutherford was professor of theology at St Andrews, where his influence was still more direct and extensive. Even at Aberdeen, a large proportion of the young aspirants to the ministry attached themselves to the party of the Protesters. In this manner the youth and growth of the Church was directed in a very decided manner to that party which was unquestionably the most distinguished for piety and zeal; which was another preparative for the great approaching trial.

[1655.] Another circumstance which contributed not a little to strengthen the Protestors, was the direct *Lamont's Diary, p. 55. † Ibid., pp. 69-71.

*

and authoritative support given to them by Cromwell. In 1655 Cromwell gave a commission to Gillespie and some of his brethren, empowering them to settle the affairs of the Church. This curious document proves, that with all his previous attachment to the Congregational system, the protector was in favour of an Established Church; and while it was obviously intended to exclude all but Protesters, it expressly provided that, in the induction of ministers, respect should be had to the choice of the most religious part of the people, though that should not be the majority. Baillie complains much of the severe proceedings of the Protesters, in deposing some ministers, rejecting aspirants, and settling young men of their own party in preference to Resolutioners; but even with all his querulous complaints, it is plain that they acted a much more lenient and impartial part than they had it in their power to have done, and than their opponents did, at the commencement of the struggle, when they set the example of deposition. Many unseemly contests undoubtedly took place; and at times the Protesters, supported by the English troops, appear to have dealt harshly towards some of their keen opponents; but, nevertheless, from all that has been recorded respecting that period, it appears that it was one of remarkable religious prosperity. The very contention of the two great parties rendered indifference in religious matters impossible on the part of either pastors or people. And although the General Assembly was suspended, no other part of church government and discipline experienced the slightest interruption; or, rather, every other part was thrown into more intense and vigorous action. The whole vitality of the kingdom seemed to be poured into the heart of the Church, and all the strong energies of the Scottish mind were directed to religious topics in a more exclusive manner than they had ever previously been. The very fact of the kingdom's complete civil prostration beneath the power of Cromwell closed every other avenue of thought and action, and even compelled men to give their entire being to the pursuit of earnest, fervent, personal religion. "I verily believe," says Kirkton, "there were more souls converted to Christ in that short period of time, than in any season since the Reformation, though of triple its duration ;" and keeping the above considerations in mind, we may admit that the account which he gives of the state of religion at that time in Scotland, though highly coloured, is, nevertheless, in all its main lineaments, a faithful representation of the truth.

Throughout the whole of Scotland during the period of Cromwell's domination, there prevailed a degree of civil peace beyond what had almost ever before been experienced. This, too, should be taken into account, when we peruse the memoirs and annals of the period; for there being no great public events to record, these gossiping chroniclers filled their pages with minute details respecting the contests between the two parties in the Church, for lack of other materials to employ their talent for journalizing. It ought to be remembered also, that although the Protesters enjoyed the favour and support of the protector to a considerable extent, and might have done so much more if they had wished it, they never compromised their principles, nor stooped to flatter the usurper. Very few of them were prevailed upon to take the "tender," or acknowledgment of his authority and that of the English Commonwealth, without a king or House of Lords, be*Nicoll's Diary, pp. 163-166.

For a more ample account see Kirkton, pp. 48-65.

cause they regarded it as implying a violation of the Covenant.* Patrick Gillespie appears to have been the only minister in Scotland that ever prayed publicly for the protector. It is further to be remarked, that when we read the writings of that period, we perceive at once a striking difference between those of the Resolutioners and those of the Protesters. The writings of the Protesters are thoroughly pervaded by a spirit of fervent piety, and contain principles of the loftiest order, stated in language of great force, and even dignity, of which we find but few similar instances in the productions of the Resolutioners. To prove this assertion, it is enough to name the works of Rutherford, Blair, Binning, Guthrie of Fenwick, Durham, Traill, Grey, Guthry of Stirling, and many others, scarcely their inferiors. Among the Resolutioners, we find none deserving to be matched with these, but Leighton, who afterwards became a prelate; David Dickson, who acknowledged that his party had erred; and Robert Douglas, who also lived long enough to see that he had been mistaken and deceived.

Before quitting the subject of the Resolutioners and Protesters, there is one point to which it is desirable that the reader's attention should be directed. It will be remembered that the direct topic which caused the contest between the two parties was the question respecting the propriety of repealing the Act of Classes, and admitting men of all professions in religion, and all varieties of character, into the army, and to other places of power and influence in a time of such danger. This the political-expediency party resolved to do, and against this the strict Covenanters protested. It is evident that the difference of opinion between them arose from the different positions from which they viewed the same subject. Both were fully aware of the perilous state of the nation, and of the necessity of adopting some strong measure to meet the emergency. But the one party trusted chiefly in a combination of human strength, though obtained by a sacrifice of religious principle; the other, in the confession and abandonment of past errors, the restoration and more strict enforcement of religious purity, and that calm trust in the protection and the strength of God, under which, by such procedure, they hoped to place their cause. The one party regarded national division as the main cause of the nation's weakness; the other ascribed their calamities to the prevalence of national sins, especially to that violation of the National Covenant which consisted in entrusting its enemies with the power to do it injury. It is needless for shallow thinkers to imagine they can decide the question summarily, by terming the one party men of enlightened and liberal sentiments, and the other narrow-minded and intolerant bigots. The Covenanters had seen the storm of war borne back innocuous from their mountain bulwarks but a few years before, when not a man was allowed to take up arms in the sacred cause of religion who was not believed to be personally under its influence. They had, besides, the analogy of all scriptural history in their favour; so that the views they held appeared to have the sanction of recent facts and of the Word of God. And had their opponents been as truly patriotic as they pretended, instead of seeking political influence before they would lend their aid, might they not have formed themselves into a separate army, hung on the enemy's flanks and rear, distracted his attention, cut off his supplies, and thereby promoted in the most liberal and unselfish manner, and to the utmost of their * Rutherford opposed the tender very keenly. Lamont's Diary,

p. 51.

power, the rescue of their country from the strong invader? This would have entitled them to the honourable appellation of men of truly enlightened minds and genuine patriotism; but their whole conduct, then and subsequently, proved them to have been influenced chiefly by ambitious, selfish, and despotic principles.

What we

Let the reader take up the question, and muse upon it deeply, in the form of the following hypothetic proposition:-Are there not principles and rules applicable to wars strictly religious, by which all operations should be governed and directed, essentially different from those involved in ordinary warfare? mean to suggest is this: that in wars strictly religious, which are of course solely defensive (for religion may not be propagated by the sword, although it may, in extraordinary cases, be so defended), no principle of merely secular policy can be admitted without vitiating the cause; no principle can be held and acted upon which has not the clear warrant of the Word of God, either in stated precept or recorded example. On the other hand, in ordinary warfare, means may be employed, and results anticipated, more according to the calculations and arrangements of human wisdom, skill, and genius. Not that, in the latter case, the over-ruling influence of Providence is more in abeyance than in the former, but that its direct power is less conspicuously displayed. Now, the Covenanters regarded the war as of a strictly religious character, otherwise they would not have engaged in it at all; and therefore they could not, they dared not, employ means on which they could not implore and expect the blessing of the Lord of Hosts. Men of no religion may deem

this view fanatical; but it will require more than the usual amount of reason and philosophy-we speak not to such men of religion-which they bring to bear upon the subject, before they prove it to be either irrational and absurd, or inconsistent with the providential government of the "Most High, who doeth according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth."

It is unnecessary to dwell on the minor details which took place during the remainder of the Protectorate. After the death of Oliver Cromwell a series of intrigues commenced, which ended in the restoration of Charles II. In Scotland these intrigues were chiefly guided by Robert Douglas, the leader of the Resolutioners, through the instrumentality of James Sharp, who at that time affected, perhaps entertained, as thoroughly as such a man could, a warm zeal for the interests of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Monk, who had remained in Scotland since its subjugation by Cromwell, appeared for a time to favour the Presbyterian cause, and continued to hold intercourse with Douglas through the medium of Sharp. The epistolary correspondence between Douglas and Sharp, preserved in Wodrow, clearly proves the duplicity, selfishness, and treachery of Sharp, and prepares us for the dark and cruel tyranny which that hollow-hearted and ruthless man subsequently exercised towards the Church which he had first betrayed, and then set himself to persecute.*

Charles II. entered London in triumph on the 29th of May 1660; and with his restoration to the sovereignty begins a new era of the Church of Scotland's history, the record of which is one of sufferings, and lamentations, and woe.

For a very full, accurate, and impartial view of the period that elapsed between the death of Charles I. and the restoration of Charles 11., the reader is referred to the "History of the Church of Scotland during the Commonwealth," by the Rev. James Beattie, recently published.

CHAPTER VII.

FROM THE RESTORATION OF CHARLES II. TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688.

State of Affairs at the Restoration-James Sharp-Council of State-Apprehension of Argyle and of James Guthrie--Middleton's Parliament-Oath of Allegiance-Act Recissory-Proceedings of the Church-Trial and Execution of Argyle, and of Guthrie-Deposition and Banishment of several Ministers-Proclamation of the King's determination to restore Prelacy-Consecration of four Scottish Bishops in London-Prohibition of all Presbyterian Church Courts-Proceedings of the Prelatic Parliament-Oaths and Declaration against the Covenant-Reformation-Diocesan Meetings-Act of Glasgow-Ejection of nearly Four Hundred Ministers-Consequences-Trial and Death of Warriston-Re-erection of the Court of High Commission-Persecutions-Proclamation against Conventicles-Causes of the Rising of Pentland-The Rising itself, Discomfiture, and Fatal Consequences-Martyrdom of Hugh M'Kail and others-Severities of the Army-The Bond-Mitchell's Attempt-Increased Severities-The First Indulgence-Dissensions caused by it-Fieldpreaching--The Accommodation proposed by Leighton-Continued Persecution-Second Indulgence-Proceedings against Conventicles and Field-preaching-The Highland Host-Barbarities committed by them-Continued Persecution, InstancesDeath of Archbishop Sharp-Declaration of Rutherglen-Battle of Drumclog-The West-country Army-Dissensions-Battle of Bothwell Bridge-Trials, Executions, and Increased Oppression -General Persecution, Instances-The Society People-Queensferry Paper and Declaration of Sanquhar-Skirmish at Ayrsmoss -Death of Cameron and others-The Torwood Excommunication-Trial and Death of Cargil-Persecutions and Martyrdoms, Instances-The Test-Proceedings against Argyle-His EscapeCircuit Courts-Murders in the Fields-Proceedings against the Society People-Their bold and resolute Conduct-Death of Charles II.-James VII.-Unsuccessful Attempt of Argyle-His Capture, Trial, and Execution-Dunottar Castle-Transportation to the Colonies as Slaves-The King's Letter to ParliamentSchemes for restoring Popery-Acts of Indulgence-TolerationLiberty of Conscience-Trial and Execution of Renwick-The Society People-Letter of the Scottish Prelates to the KingLetter of the Presbyterian Ministers to the Prince of OrangeThe Revolution.

[1660.] THE Restoration of Charles II. to the throne of his ancestors, without the guard of precautionary conditions of any kind, and the strange frenzy of extravagant loyalty which seized upon the whole kingdom like some uncontrollable epidemic, so strongly contrasted with the conduct and temper exhibited by the nation but a few years before, would require for the explanation of a change so sudden and so great, an investigation more minute, searching, and profound, than it has ever yet received. Into that subject, however, we cannot enter, further than merely to remark, that for the fundamental error of restoring the king to full power, without any prelimiting conditions for regulating the exercise of that power, the Church of Scotland, as a body, was not to blame. So early as the 6th of February 1660, six of the leading ministers met in Edinburgh, and agreed to send Mr James Sharp to London, to hold intercourse with Monk, according to that wily politician's desire; and gave to him instructions by which he was to regulate all his stipulations in behalf of the Church of Scotland.* At that time the design of restoring the king had not been divulged; but these instructions were equally applicable whatever form of civil government should be established,- -a matter with which the Presbyterian Church did not wish directly to interfere, though decidedly favourable to monarchy. Sharp seems to have been chosen as the agent of the Church at this juncture, * Wodrow, Dr Burns's edit., p. 5.

because of his success in some previous negotiations during the time of Cromwell, when he had been sent by the Resolutioners to counteract the influence of the Protesters. His conduct on that occasion gave great satisfaction to his party, and is praised in the most extravagant terms by Baillie, who calls him " 'that very worthy, pious, wise, and diligent young man, Mr James Sharp.' His character was better understood by Bishop Burnet; and as it is difficult for a Presbyterian to mention his name and character in such terms as he deserves, without being thought to be influenced by violent and vindictive feelings, it may be expedient to quote the language of the prelatic historian.

66

Among these, Sharp, who was employed by the Resolutioners of Scotland, was one. He carried with him a letter from the Earl of Glencairn to Hyde, made | soon after Earl of Clarendon, recommending him as the only person capable to manage the design of setting up Episcopacy in Scotland; upon which he was received into great confidence. Yet, as he had observed very carefully the success of Monk's solemn protestations against the king and for the commonwealth, it seems he was so pleased with the original, that he resolved to copy after it, without letting himself be diverted from it by scruples. For he stuck neither at solemn protestations, both by word of mouth and by letters (of which I have seen many proofs), nor at appeals to God of his sincerity in acting for the Fresbytery, both in prayers and on other occasions, joining with these many dreadful imprecations on himself, if he did prevaricate. He was all the while maintained by Presbyterians as their agent, and continued to give them a constant account of the progress of his negotiation in their service, while he was indeed undermining it. This piece of craft was so visible, he having repeated his protestations to as many persons as then grew jealous of him, that when he threw off the mask, about a year after this, it laid a foundation of such a character of him, that nothing could ever bring people te any tolerable thoughts of a man whose dissimulation and treachery was so well known, and of which so many proofs were to be seen under his own hand."*

To this nothing need be added regarding the man; but what must be thought of the system which needed such a man and such arts for its introduction? Yet, let this be said,-few, very few, Episcopalians have ever expressed their approbation of either Sharp or his treachery to the Church of Scotland; and no system is justly chargeable for all the faults of its adherents. In truth, men are always either better or worse than their system or their party. A good man may be attached to a bad system or party; but he will avoid as far as possible what is evil in it, and cleave chiefly to what is good, and will accordingly be better than his system or his party. A bad man may be attached to a good system or party; but he will acquire and exhibit little of what is good in it, and will draw forth, embody, and display peculiarly what is evil, and will therefore be worse than his system or party. Thus Sharp, and the greater part of the Scottish prelates, were worse than their system, unscriptural as we believe that system of Church government to be, and as we think its unreluctant employment of such men sufficiently proves it.

The correspondence which took place between Douglas and Sharp, during the residence of the latter in London, is highly instructive, both in showing the views entertained by the large party in the Church of Scotland, whose counsels were directed by Douglas, * Burnet's History of his Own Times, vol. i. p. 92.

and in detecting the duplicity of Sharp. A very able paper was transmitted by Douglas to Sharp, on the 26th of March, containing the matured opinions of that sagacious man concerning the settlement of the government in the three kingdoms. In that document, Douglas proceeds strongly to advocate the restoration of Charles, and the establishment of the Presbyterian form of church government in Scotland, England, and Ireland; admitting, at the same time, the perfect right of England and Ireland to determine for themselves, and disclaiming all intention of using force. Yet in the same paper, he does not hesitate to lay it down as an incontrovertible proposition, that " Episcopacy and other forms are men's devices, but Presbyterial government is a divine ordinance."* Such, indeed, was the general opinion of the period. It was at a considerably subsequent time that the idea of defending Prelacy, on the ground of its being a divine institution, began to grow prevalent, though it had been previously held by a few; and it was, of course, solely on the ground of its political capabilities that kings and statesmen were SO anxious to have it established. Sharp easily perceived in what direction the politicians were endeavouring to steer; but he did every thing in his power to conceal it from Douglas, lest some strong resolution should be adopted by the Church of Scotland, and his design frustrated. Douglas proposed that a commission should proceed to London to make the mind of the Church clearly known; but Sharp urged the inexpediency of such a step with so much plausibility, that it was abandoned. He knew well, that if Douglas himself had been on the spot, his own machinations would have been discovered, and all his golden hopes at once destroyed. In the meantime, Douglas had enough to do tc manage matters at home. The majority of the Resolutioners placed full confidence in him, and allowed themselves to be directed according to his judgment; but the Protesters could not be moved from their position. They distrusted the king, the courtiers, and their brethren of the opposite party in the Church, and would not unite with them in the measures they were proposing. This continued antagonism was productive of the most pernicious results. It kept the Church of Scotland in a state of equipoise, or rather paralysis Neither party could give utterance to what might justly be regarded as the national mind; for their opinions mutually counterbalanced each other, so that the nation seemed to have no decided will or wish on the subject. This was exactly the condition in which the most deadly enemy of the Presbyterian Church could have wished it to be placed. Had either party possessed a decided preponderance, the politicians would not have dared to assail it; or, had they been able to unite, as in the early days of the Covenant, they might have bid defiance to every assailant. In numbers the Protesters were the weaker party, but in unwavering integrity of principle and character the stronger. They could not form a coalition with the Resolutioners without a sacrifice of principle and conscience; while the other party might have joined them without sacrificing any thing but expediency and pride. They were destined to be more united ere long; but not till both had been thrown into the furnace.

It deserves to be particularly remarked, that the Protesters made repeated advances to their brethren, and that Douglas was prevented from complying with their proposals for a union, chiefly through the insidious policy of Sharp, who continued to assure him that the safety of the Church would consist in its majority keep* Wodrow, vol. i. p. 15.