Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/520

 COVENANTERS

460

COVENANTERS

nation sided with the Parliament, but it was with reluctance that the Covenanters agreed to give the English brotherly assistance. This assistance they were determined to give only on one condition, name- ly, that England should reform its religion according to the Scottish pattern. To this end England and Scotland entered into the Solenm League and Cov- enant (17 Aug., 1643). It would have been well for Scotland if she had never entered the League to en- force her own church system upon England. If she had been satisfied with a simple alliance and assist- ance, all would have been well. But by materially helping the English Parliament to win at Marston Moor she had helped to place the decision of affairs of state in the hands of the army, which was predomi- nantly Independent and hated presbyters as much as bishops. If the Scotch had recrossed the Tweed in 1646 and left the Parliament and the army to fight out for themselves the question of ecclesiastical gov- errmient, England would not have interfered with their reUgion; but the Covenanters thought it their duty to extirpate idolatry and Baal-worship and estab- lish the true religion in England, and so came in con- flict with those who wielded the sword. The result was that England not only did not become Presby- terian, but Scotland herself became a conquered country. In military matters the Covenanters were successful in England, but in their own country they were sorely tried for a year (1644) by the brilliant career of Montrose (an account of the year of Montrose is given in A. Lang, Hist, of Scot., Ill, v). On ac- count of the nature of the troops engaged, the encoun- ters were fought with a vindictive ferocity unknown in the English part of the Civil War. Not merely was the number of slain very great, but both sides slaked their thirst for vengeance in plunder, murder, and wholesale massacres. In this respect the Covenanters must bear the greater share of blame. The Catholic Celts whom Montrose led undoubtedly committed outrages, especially against their personal enemies the Campbells, during the winter campaign of Inverlochy (Patrick Gordon, Britane's Distemper, pp. 95 sqq.), but restrained by Montrose they never perpetrated such perfidy as the Covenanters after Philiphaugh, and the slaughter of three hundred women, "married wives of the Irish". Montrose's success and the fact that he was a leader of Scoto-Irish lashed the hatred of the preachers into fury. They raved for the blood of the Malignants. The preachers, with a fanaticism revoltingly blasphemous and as ferocious as that of Islam, believed that more blood must be shed to propitiate the Deity (Balfour, Annals, III, 311).

The victory of Philiphaugh (13 Sept., 1645) removed the immediate danger to the Covenanters and likewise extinguished the last glimmer of hope for the Royalist cause, which had suffered irreparable defeat a few weeks earlier at Naseby. But the very triumph of the Parlia- mentary forces in England was fatal to the cause of the Solemn League and Covenant. The victory had been gained by the army which was not Presbyterian but Independent, and capable now of resisting the inflic- tion of an intolerant and tyrannical church government upon itself and upon England. When, therefore, the Scottish army recrossed the Tweed, February, 1047. it was with its main purpose unfulfilled. England hatl not been thoroughly reformed ; heresy, especially in the army, was still" rampant. The Soienui League and Covenant had been a failure, and the Soots had fought in vain. Worse than this, the Covenanters tlicmselvcs were divided. The success of the Coveicant had been due to the alliance between the Kirk and the nobility. The latter had .ioinc(l the cause from jealousy of the au- thority of the bishops and from fear of the loss of their estates by the Act of Hevocation. But now, bishops there were none, and the nobility were still in po.s- session of their estates. Since the causes for further co-operation were thus wanting, the feudal in.stincts of

the nobility, love of monarchical government, con- tempt for the lower orders to which the majority of the Kirk belonged, naturally reasserted themselves. To this must be added their intense jealousy of Argyll, who owed his influence to the support he gave the Kirk. A Royalist party began thus to be formed among the Covenanters. The cleavage m their ranks was shown in the dispute over the question of the surrender of Charles I to the Parliament (1646). Hamilton had pressed the Estates to give the king honour and shelter in Scotland, but Argyll, backed by the preachers, op- posed him. There must be no imcovenanted king in Scotland. The breach was witlened when Charles fell into the hands of the heretical army. To many it now seemed best to support the king, for if the army should prove successful Presbyterianism would be lost. Ac- cordingly Scottish commissioners, Loudoim, Lanark, and Lauderdale visited Charles at Carisbrooke and signed the hopeless and foolish "Engagement" (27 Dec, 1647). In Scotland the Engagers had a large following, and a majority in the Estates. In the Par- liament the Hamiltonian party could carry all before it and was ready to take immediate action for the king. But the Kirk, with Argyll and some ten nobles, re- mained immovably on the otherside. They would not defile themselves by making common cause with the uncovenanted. The preachers cursed and thundered against the Engagers and the levies that were being raised for an invasion of England. Scotland thus di- vided against itself had not much chance against the veterans of Cromwell and Lambert. After Preston, Wigan, and Warrington (17-19 Aug., 1648) the Scot^ tish Royalist forces were no more. The destruction of Hamilton's force was a triimiph for the Kirk and the anti-Engagers. But an event now occurred that once more divided the nation. On 30 January, 1649, Charles I was executed. Scotchmen of whatever party looked upon the deed as a crime and as a national in- sult. The day after the news reached Scotland, they proclaimed Charles II King, not only of Scotland, but of England and Ireland. The acceptance of Charles II, however, had been saddled with the condition that he should pledge himself to the two Covenants. After some hesitation and after the failure of all his hopes to use Ireland as a basis of an invasion of England Charles II swore to the Covenants, 11 June, 1650.

To the more extreme portion of the Covenanters this agreement with the king seemed hypocrisy, an in- sult to Heaven. They knew that he was no true con- vert to the Covenants, that he had no intention of keeping them, that he had perjured himself, and they refused to have dealings with the king. Argyll with the more moderate wing, still anxious to avoid a defi- nite rupture with the extremists, had perforce to make concessions to tliese feelings ; he made the imfortunate prince walk through the very depths of humiliation (Peterkin, Records, p. 599). This split was to prove fatal. Only a united Scotland could have defeated C'romwell. Instead, to propitiate the Deity, Charles was kept apart from the army, and while every avail- able man was wanted to meet the soldiers of Cromwell, the fanatics were "purging" the army of all Royalists and .Malignants (op. ci't., p. 623). To allow tliem to fight would be to court disaster. How could Jehovah give victory to the children of Israel, if they fought side by side with the idolatrous Amalckites? The purgings of the army went merrily on daily, and the jireachers promiscil in tiotl's name a victory over the erroneous and blasphemous sectaries. Like the Scots Cromwell also looked upon war as an appeal to the goil of bat- tles, and the jvidgment was delivered at Dunbar, 3 Sept., 1650. "Surely it's probable the Kirk has done their do. I believe their king will set u]) upon his own score now." This was Cromwell's conunent upon his victory and he was right. The rout of Dunbar de- stroyed the ascendancy of the Covenanters. The preachers had promised victory, but Jehovah had sent