In

him) he sinfully complied with what we most sinfully pressed upon him. this, he was not so constant to his principles as his Father, in yielding to this act of so great dissembling; but his strait and our guiltiness was the greater, especially [that of] some of us,-I mean especially by myself, who had so clear convictions of this to be wrong, that I spoke of it to the King himself, desiring him not to subscribe the Covenant, if in his conscience he was not satisfied—and yet went on to close the treaty with him, who, I knew so well, had for his own ends done it against his heart. But I may say,-so did I desire him to do it against mine,—so weak and inconstant was I; being overcome with the example and advice of others, gracious and holy men, that were there, whom in this I too simply and implicitly followed, choosing rather to suspect myself in my judgment to be wrong, than theirs. But the Lord taught me in this, and in things of that nature, not so implicitly to depend on men."

The other person referred to was Mr. John Livingstone, Minister of Ancram. He was appointed one of the Commissioners in 1650, for the treaty at Breda; and in his own Biography, after alluding to his extreme reluctance to be employed in a matter of so much importance, he enters very fully into detail. Livingstone's Life has been several times printed, and his account is much too long to be given in this place. But his statements are very important, and he was impressed with the conviction of the King's insincerity. The three Ministers had no vote, and the Earl of Casillis was chosen president which kept him from voting, three of the Commissioners, Lothian, Wynrame, and Smith, being in favour of compromising matters, outvoted the other two, Brodie and Jaffray, who were of a contrary opinion. "Some of our number," Livingstone says, " urged once that the Treaty might be by word of mouth, and not by papers; but that motion was rejected. The drawing up of the papers to be presented to the King was committed, by those of the State to MR. BRODIE, and by those of the Church to Mr. James Wood; wherein this oversight was committed in the very first papers, that the words and purpose of the Instructions were not fully keeped, but both in the order and matter somewhat was altered or left out by them that drew them up, and more thereafter was altered upon debate in the meetings." But Charles in his desire to secure Scotland was ready enough to sign anything; and his

a

• Livingstone's Life, Wodrow Society edition, Select Biographies, vol. i. p. 172.

mode of life, and his counsellors were such, that Livingstone says, " All these things made me alwayes suspect there could be no blessing on the Treaty, and many a time Mr. Hucheson and I, whose chambers joyned close one to another, would confess one to another, that we were glad when the Treaty was like to break off, and sad when there was appearance of closing it." a

b

Livingstone further says, in a letter written to Mr. Robert Douglas, before landing at Aberdeen, on Sabbath the 23d of June, 1651. "The King hath granted all desyred, and this day hath sworne and subscribed the two Cove_ nants in the words of your last Declaration, and with assurance to renew the same at Edinburgh when desyred." At the meeting of the Scots Parliament on the 1st of July, Sir James Balfour, in his Annals, says, "A letter from our Commissioners, dated from Aberdeen, 28 June, showing that they had sent Libertone and Brodie, desyring that the House would give them full trust, in what they had commission to report for them.

"Brodie and (Wynrame of) Libertone made a full relation of all their negotiations with his Majestie; they producit the Covenant, with the Churches explanations, subscribed with the King's hand, as also the concessions subscribed by his Majestie. They likewise exhibit to the House foure Articles from the Commissioners with the King, to be solved and considered by the Parliament.” c

The first of these Articles was to take course for the payment of 100,000 merks which they had borrowed for the King, at Campvere, payable on the 1st of August, upon their own personal surety, "for they declared that they could have none upon the publick faith," or the warrant which Parliament had previously granted for that purpose.

In regard to this episode in the history of Charles the Second, it is only necessary to say, that he was constrained to accept the terms offered. The Comissioners having, on their return, laid before the Scottish Parliament

• Wodrow Society, Select Biographies, vol. i, p. 174. Ib., p. 260.

• Sir James Balfour's Historical Works, vol. iv. p. 67.

their Report, with copies of "the Papers interchanged betwixt his Majesty and the said Commissioners," on the 14th of June, an "a on the 14th of June, an "Act of Approbation of the proceedings of the Commissioners who went to his Majestie," was passed: the Estates of Parliament "being satisfied with their integriti, acknowledge their faithfulness and diligence, do therefore unanimousli and heartilie approve their proceedings, and render to them the heartie thanks of this kingdome for the same." The Papers alluded to, along with the Report, are contained in the Parliamentary proceedings. On the 4th of July 1650, Brodie was one of those who were deputed "to repair and congratulate his Majesties happy arrival in this Kingdom." The result of these proceedings, the arrival of the King, 23rd of June, 1650; his coronation at Scone, and renewing the Solemn League and Covenant, on the 1st of January, 1651; and the battle of Worcester, on the 3rd of September, which drove him again into an inglorious exile, are matters of general history, and need not be detailed.

On his return from Holland, Alexander Brodie of Brodie had been appointed as Ordinary Lord of Session, on 26th of June, 1649.* He accepted the situation, and gave his oath De fideli administratione in the presence of Parliament, on the 23rd of July, but did not take his seat on the bench till the 1st of November. In his judicial capacity, therefore, Lord Brodie, as he was called, could bave had but little experience, as the last sitting of the Court was on the 28th of February, 1650, the distracted state of the country having prevented any meeting of the Court during the next Session ; and in May, 1652, the forms of the Court itself were wholly changed, by the .appointment under the Great Seal of seven Commissioners for the Administration of Justice in Civil affairs. His resolution not to accept any office under the English rule, enabled him to retire and live quietly in the North, and probably led him to avoid entering so keenly, as he might otherwise

have done, into the religious divisions which proved so fatal to the peace and unity of the Church.

The author of "A True Representation of the Rise, Progresse, and State of the present Divisions of the Church of Scotland," printed in 1657, says, "The Division and rent which is now in our Church, (once beautifull and strong in its unity and harmony, as a city compact together) is matter of sad lamentation to us. . . . We could heartily wish, that our breach, had it been the Lord's good pleasure, being removed ere now, our differences had been buried in silence, and perpetual oblivion, rather than that we should be necessitated to give an account thereof to the world." Without attempting to furnish any minute details regarding such disputes, some brief allusion to the state of Church matters at this period is at least requisite. By the Act of Classes, in January, 1649, all such persons as were concerned with the Duke of Hamilton "in his late unlawful war against England" were termed Malignants, and were excluded from places of trust, or employment in the army. This and some other stringent Acts were rescinded by the Parliament which met at Stirling in May, 1651. The Commissioners of the General Assembly were asked, and gave their concurrence to this measure by which such persons were enabled to make a profession of their repentance, and be capable of serving in the army in terms of the Public Resolutions. The Assembly having met at St. Andrews on the 16th of July following, an unsuccessful attempt was made to exclude those persons who had been upon the Commission; but their proceedings and minutes were approved and confirmed, while the commissions were rejected of Patrick Gillespie and others of the opposite party, who were thus prevented from sitting as members. In consequence of such a result, Samuel Rutherford gave in a Protestation against the freeness and legality of the Assembly itself, and this being subscribed by twenty-one of the members, they rose and left the meeting in a body. The state of public affairs

Anonymous, but written by Mr. James Wood of St. Andrews, oue of the Commis

sioners to Holland and Breda, in 1649 and 1650, see p. xxii.

having rendered it necessary for the Assembly to adjourn the meetings from St. Andrews to Dundee, the Protestation was then taken into consideration, and as the Protesters were not present, and no one appeared in support of the reasons of protest, it was unanimously adjudged to be deserving of the highest censures. The Moderator, Robert Douglas, said, "he thought it no hard matter to evince the Protestation to be the highest breach of all the articles of the Covenant, that ever was since the work of reformation began." The Assembly further proceeded to depose three of the Protesting ministers, James Guthrie, Patrick Gillespie, and James Symson; and to suspend James Nasmyth. A late writer justly remarks, that "the liberal and enlightened reviewer of the proceedings of the Assembly, 1651, will find cause for the utmost caution in commending or in censuring either party."a But these unhappy divisions were productive of bitter animosities, and proved fatal, as we have said, to the peace of the Church, and the continuance of the Presbyterian Church Government.

We might indeed feel surprised at the excitement which then prevailed, if, in our own days, we were not called upon to witness the effects of similar proceedings in Church matters. Robert Baillie of Glasgow, on the 11th of March, 1651, says, "Mr. James Guthrie and Mr. Patrick Gillespie are going on in their work to destroy our State, and rent [rend] our Kirk, but we hope it shall not lye in their power. Mr. Robert Douglas, Mr. Robert Blair, and Mr. David Dick[son] stand very right and zealous against their evill way." 11b Blair himself, five days later, writes, "I like not the present repealing of the Act of Classes: it was ill made, and now it were as ill rescinded;" but in July following," he says, "The folly of the Protesters, I think it very presumptuous."d It would seem that Brodie was not present at this Assembly. At first he appears to have leaned towards the Protesters. But his cautious temper and conscientious scruples kept him