[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1646.  June 10.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1646.  August 20.]

royalists; and the policy of the measure was proved by the number of those who hastened to profit by the indulgence, and thus extinguished the hopes of the few who still thought it possible to conjure up another army in defence of the captive monarch.[1]

While the two houses, secure of victory, debated at their leisure the propositions to be submitted for acceptance to the king, the Scots employed the interval in attempts to convert him to the Presbyterian creed.  For this purpose, Henderson, the most celebrated of their ministers, repaired from London to Newcastle.  The king, according to his promise, listened to the arguments of his new instructor; and an interesting controversy respecting the divine institution of episcopacy and presbyteracy was maintained with no contemptible display of skill between the two polemics.  Whether Charles composed without the help of a theological monitor the papers, which on this occasion he produced, may perhaps be doubted; but the author whoever he were, proved himself a match, if not more than a match, for his veteran opponent.[2] The Scottish

[Footnote 1:  Journals, viii. 309, 329, 360, 374, 475.  Baillie, ii. 207, 209.  Rush. vi. 280-297.  The last who submitted to take down the royal standard was the marquess of Worcester.  He was compelled to travel, at the age of eighty, from Ragland Castle to London, but died immediately after his arrival.  As his estate was under sequestration, the Lords ordered a sum to be advanced for the expenses of his funeral.—­Journals, viii. 498, 616.  See Note (B) at the end of the volume.]

[Footnote 2:  The following was the chief point in dispute.  Each had alleged texts of Scripture in support of his favourite opinion, and each explained those texts in an opposite meaning.  It was certainly as unreasonable that Charles should submit his judgment to Henderson, as that Henderson should submit his to that of Charles.  The king, therefore, asked who was to be judge between them.  The divine replied, that Scripture could only be explained by Scripture, which, in the opinion of the monarch, was leaving the matter undecided.  He maintained that antiquity was the judge.  The church government established by the apostles must have been consonant to the meaning of the Scripture.  Now, as far as we can go back in history, we find episcopacy established:  whence it is fair to infer that episcopacy was the form established by the apostles.  Henderson did not allow the inference.  The church of the Jews had fallen into idolatry during the short absence of Moses on the mount, the church of Christ might have fallen into error in a short time after the death of the apostles.  Here the controversy ended with the sickness and death of the divine.—­See Charles’s Works, 75-90.]