« PreviousContinue »
IXACTIVITY OF THE SCOTTISH AUXILIARIES-SPREAD OF INDEPENDENCY
AND MULTIPLICATION OF SECTS-VISITATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE-BATTLE OF MARSTON MOOR--FORTNIGHT'S VACATION OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY (JULY 23 -- AUGUST 7, 1644). – PRINCIPLE OF TOLERATION AND STATE OF THE TOLERATION CONTROVERSY : SYNOPSIS OF ENGLISH SECTS AND SECTARIES IN 1644. RESUMPTION OF ASSEMBLY'S PROCEEDINGS : DENUNCIATION OF PICKED SECTARIES AND HERETICS — CROMWELL'S ISTERFERENCE FOR INDEPENDENCY: ACCOMMODATION ORDER OF PARLIAMENT-PRESBYTERIAN SETTLEMENT VOTED-ESSEX BEATEN
AND THE WAR
SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE AND NEW
MODEL OF THE ARMY-PARLIAMENTARY VENGEANCES.
The English Parliamentarians hoped great things from the Scottish auxiliary army. The Royalists, on the other hand, were both angry and alarmed. In anticipation, indeed, of the coming-in, of the Scots, the King had ventured on a very questionable step. He had summoned what may be called an ANTI-PARLIAMENT to meet him at Oxford on the 22nd of January 1643-4, to consist of all members who had been expelled from the two Houses in Westminster, and all that might be willing, in the new crisis, to withdraw from those rebellious Houses. On the appointed day, accordingly, there had rallied round the King at Oxford 49 Peers and 141 Commoners; which was not a bad show against the 22 Peers and 280 Commoners who met on the same day in the two Houses at Westminster. But little else resulted from the convocation of the ANTI-PARLIAMENT. In fact, many who had yone to it had done so with a view to negotiations for peace. Such negotiations were at least talked of. In addition to vehement denunciations of the doings of the Parliament, there were some abortive attempts at friendly intercourse. All which having failed, the ANTI-PARLIAMENT was prorogued April 16, 1644, after having sat nearly three months. Parliaments, even when they were Royalist Parliaments, were not the agencies that Charles found pleasantest. He trusted rather to the arbitrament of the field.
INACTIVITY OF THE SCOTTISH AUXILIARY ARMY: SPREAD OF
INDEPENDENCY IN ENGLAND: MULTIPLICATION OF SECTS.
No sudden blow was struck by the Scots. They had fastened themselves, in proper military fashion, on the north of England, and their presence there was useful; but that was all. It was a great disappointment to Baillie. He had expected that the appearance of his dear countrymen in England would put an end to the mere military“ tig-tagging,” as he had called it, of Essex and Waller, and quicken immediately the tramp of affairs. His belief all along had been that what was needed in England was an importation of Scottish impetuousness to animate the heavy English, and teach them the northern trick of carrying all things at the double with a hurrah and a yell. It was a sore affliction, therefore, to the good man that, from January 1643-4, on throngh February, March, April, May, and even June, the 21,000 Scots under Leslie should be in England, and yet be stirring so little. Instead of fighting their way southwards into the heart of the country, they were still squatting in the Northumbrian coal-region, and sticking there, not without some bad behaviour and disorder. Doubtless, it was all right in strategy, and Leslie knew what he was about; but oh, that it could have been otherwise! For of what use a great Scottish victory would have been at that time to the cause of Presbyterianism? Faster, more massively, more resistlessly than all the argumentations of Henderson, Gillespie, and Rutherford, aided by those of the Smectymnuans, with Vines, Palmer, Burges, and the rest of the English Presbyterians, such a victory would have crushed down the contentiousness
of the Five Dissenting Brethren, and swept the propositions of complete Scottish Presbytery through the Westminster Assembly. Parliament, receiving these propositions, would have passed them with alacrity; and what could the English nation have done but acquiesce? But, alas ! as things were! The Five Dissenting Brethren and the other "thraward wits” in tie Assembly could still persevere in their struggle with the Presbyterian majority, debating every proposition that implied a surrender of Congregationalism, and conscious that in so impeding a Presbyterian settlement they were pleasing a growing body of their fellow-countrymen. What though London was staunchly and all but universally Presbyterian? Throughout the country, and, above all, in the Army, the case was different. The inactivity of the Scots was affording time for the spirit of Independency to spread, and was giving rise to awkward questions. It began actually to be said of the Westminster Assembly, that it “ did cry down the truth with votes, and was an Anti-Christian meeting which would erect a Presbytery worse than Bishops.” In the Army especially such Anti-Presbyterian sentiments, and questionings of the infallibility of the Scots, had become rife. “The
Independents have so managed matters,” writes Baillie, April 26, “that of the officers and sojers in Manchester's “ army, certainly also in the General's (Essex’s), and, as I * hear, in Waller's likewise, more than two parts are for them, and these of the far most resolute and confident men
for the Parliament party.” As regarded Essex's army an Waller's, Baillie afterwards found reason to think that this was a great exaggeration ; but it appears to have been true enough respecting Manchester's. By that time there was no doubt either who was at the head of these Army Independents. It was Cromwell—now no longer mere " Colonel Cromwell,” but "Lieutenant-general Cromwell,” second in command in the Associated Counties under Manchester. As early as April 2 Baillie speaks of him as “ the great Independent.” With such a man to look up to, and with patrons also in the two Houses of Parliament, little wonder that the Independents in the Army began to feel themselves strong, and to
regard the drift of the Westminster Assembly and the Londoners towards an absolute Presbyterianism as a movement innocent enough while it consisted in talk only, but to be watched carefully and disowned in due time.
All might be retrieved, however! What hope there might yet be in a great Scottish success! With this idea Baillie still hugged himself. “We are exceeding sad and ashamed,” he had written, April 19, “that our army, so much talked "of, has done as yet nothing at all.” But again, May 9, “We trust God will arise, and do something by our Scots army. We are afflicted that, after so long time, we have “gotten no hit of our enemy; we hope God will put away " that shame. Waller, Manchester, Fairfax, and all, gets victories; but Leslie, from whom all was expected, as yet “ has had his hands bound. God, we hope, will loose them, and send us matter of praise also.” The victories of Waller, Manchester, and Fairfax, here referred to by Baillie, had been nothing very considerable-mere fights in their several districts, heard of at the time, but counting for little now in the history of the war; but they contrasted favourably with what could be told of the Scots. What was that? It was that they had summoned Newcastle to surrender, but had advanced beyond that to vn, leaving it untaken. When Baillie wrote the last-quoted passage, however, they were more hopefully astir. Fairfax, with his northern-English force, had joined them at Tadcaster in Yorkshire; the Earl of Manchester had been summoned northwards to add what strength he could bring from the Associated Counties; and the enterprise on which the three conjoined forces were to be engaged—the Scots, Fairfax's men, and Manchester's—was the siege of York. It was a great business on all grounds ; and on this amongst others, that the Marquis of Newcastle was shut up in the city. Might not the Scots retrieve their character in this business? It was Baillie's fervent prayer. But a dreadful doubt had occurred to him. What if the Scots, mixed as they now were with the English Parliamentarian soldiers before York, and in contact with the Independents among them under Man
chester and Croce 1.1-SUITE L Heren distemper! Writing Marks rinn . & charlain in the South TIL ET LIL & VA hint on ite stat
The' DE SETS “and roars are con gli Cositas HT İLomi * wherein mate of them IT ja TOL TE that our sir sa mas de 721 Oligar en -infected to their act: w211 est id - arny, we fear it når sol
Here there mast ce trade :-The ATIndependency w ws and the Trainerius. 23 of which they receiei Cras de bani vas a id of much larcer dinensis and Lee opsie zalude, than the mild Independent a Vass Gowa Baratos, Vre, Sinjeun, and Erize, who the Westerse Asserter. The Independent of these Ere Divines assised sung in their courageous assertion of the Congregatireast pacenie of church-onanization in the list of the orerwtears Presbyterianism around them, and in their dain that should their reasonings for Cozzationalen pare in vain, and should the Presbyterian system be established in England, there should be at all events "an indulgenoe" under that system, for themselves and their adherents, in some lesser differences" The “lesser differences for which ther thus prospectively craved an indulgence had not been specifically stated; but it is pretty clear that they were not, to any great extent, differences of theological belief, but were rather those differences which would arise from the conscientious perseverance of a minority in Congregationalist practices after a Presbyterian rule had been established nationally. "You know that we do not differ from you in theological doctrines" is what the Five Dissenting Brethren virtually said to the Presbyterians; "your teaching is our teaching, and what you call errors we call errors: our difference lies wholly, or all but wholly, in the fact that are hold every particular congregation of Christians to be a church within itself, whereas you maintain the interconnectedness of congregations,
1 Baillie, Vol. II. from p. 128 to p. 197.