The cause of English Episcopacy sank into a hopeless condition.
Whatever streaks of light had just before been flickering on its
horizon had now totally vanished; not that the removal of the prelates'
bench from the House of Peers sealed its fate, for, apart from
legislative authority and political position, Episcopal office and
influence might have been retained. But the policy of Laud and Montague
had been such as to estrange from the Order the affections of the
Puritans, then the most active and influential part of the religious
population of the country. The complicity of Church rulers in the
unpopular proceedings of the High Commission and Star Chamber Courts,
and their sympathy in Strafford's scheme of arbitrary rule, had torn
away from them the last ties of attachment on the part of the middle
classes, which, in modern England, form the only trustworthy stays
of power in Church or State. The effect of the protest of Archbishop
Williams and his associates had confirmed the mean opinion in which
all the bishops were held, and had now rendered a case before very
doubtful, wholly desperate. Charles, who from the beginning had been
ready to stake the crown in his struggle for the Episcopal Church,
had by his arrest of the five members exasperated to the utmost the
supporters of the Constitution, and placed himself in a false position
towards the House of Commons; so that, while imperilling his own
prerogatives, he also injured the Church, with which he identified the
interests of his throne.
[Sidenote: 1641-2.]
Even the secession of certain conspicuous advocates from the ranks of
ecclesiastical reform to the opposite side served to weaken, not to
help, the cause of ecclesiastical conservatism.
Sir Edward Dering's course has been described. We have seen him to be
one of those men, who, after looking at both sides of a question, and
endeavouring to keep the mean between extremes, at length come to look
at one side so much more than the other, that they unconsciously swerve
in a direction divergent from their original career, and then, with
exquisite simplicity, wonder that they are charged with vacillation.
Such persons are also apt to be impetuous, and to speak unguardedly
in the heat of debate; and, while honestly hating the character of
turn-coats, they expose themselves to that odious accusation. Sir
Edward had looked at Anglicanism and at Nonconformity, trying to
steer a middle course; but circumstances of late having brought
before him most prominently the dangers of schism, he now inveighed
against it with the same zeal, which, in the spring and summer of
1641, had inflamed his anti-prelatical orations. It is very easy to
make good against this honest but shallow politician the charge of
self-contradiction. It is curious to see in his "Defence" how one who
courted popularity winced under the accusation of being an apostate,
and how he parried the charge of going over to the enemy's camp. At an
hour when parties were plunging into a mortal struggle, a much wiser
man, counselling moderation, would have had little chance of making
himself heard; and certainly Dering's laboured distinction between
ruin and reform did as little toward preventing the first as promoting
the second; and it could only produce a grim smile in the iron face of
a Puritan, when the recent church reformer cautioned his friends, in
classic phrase, against "breaking asunder that well ordered chain of
government, which from the chair of Jupiter reacheth down by several
golden even links to the protection of the poorest creature that now
lives among us."[276]
[Sidenote: _Secessions from the Popular Party._]
[Sidenote: 1641-2.]
Another seceder was Lord Falkland, who though a far different man from
Dering, yet possessed an amount of impetuosity which at times mastered
his wisdom; for instance, when on one occasion the Speaker desired the
Members of the House to concur in a vote of thanks by a movement of
the hat, Falkland, with a sort of childish irritability, "clasped his
hands together upon the crown of his hat, and held it close down to his
head."[277] It is somewhat singular that such a man should be held up
as an example of moderation--that one so impulsive and demonstrative
should have won renown for calmness and caution. The truth is, that he
had looked even more closely than Dering had done at the two sides of
the great controversy, and by dwelling exclusively first on the one
and then on the other, had incurred, like his parliamentary friend,
the charge of tergiversation. He saw more strongly the objections to
a question than the grounds of its support. "The present evil always
seemed to him the worst--he was always going backward and forward;
but it should be remembered to his honour, that it was always from
the stronger to the weaker side that he deserted: while Charles was
oppressing the people, Falkland was a resolute champion of liberty.
He attacked Strafford, he even concurred in strong measures against
Episcopacy; but the violence of his party annoyed him and drove him
to the other party, to be equally annoyed there."[278] Falkland
deserted his former friends in October, on the reintroduction of the
Bill for taking away the bishops' votes; on the ground, that, though
at first he thought it might prove an effectual compromise, and might
save Episcopacy by sacrificing its political power, yet he afterwards
entertained the opinion that it would have no such effect. The charge
of dishonesty never can be brought against him; his character in this
respect, like polished armour, could not be dimmed for more than a
moment by the breath of scandal. A perfect Bayard in his chivalrous
career, _sans peur et sans reproche_, however he might diverge from
his previous path, he can never be justly regarded as a renegade.
The persuasion of his friend Hyde, his sympathies as a tasteful and
accomplished gentleman with the cavalier party, and beyond all, perhaps
a sort of religious reverence for royalty, had more than anything to do
with his change of policy in October, and his acceptance of office in
the King's councils in January. And it does not appear, that, though
he dreaded extreme measures against the Church, he had any more zeal
for prelates after than before his separation from his old friends.
It was for the crown rather than the mitre that he threw his weight
into the royal scale. He approved of moderate Episcopacy, but for that
he did not make his great sacrifice. He could not say with Sir Edward
Verney, "I have eaten the King's bread, and served him near thirty
years;" but he could adopt the veteran's declaration, "I will not do
so base a thing as to forsake him." He was not prepared to exclaim, "I
chose rather to lose my life, which I am sure I shall do, to preserve
and defend those things which are against my conscience;" but he
might have adopted the words of the same brave soldier, "I will deal
freely with you, I have no reverence for Bishops for whom this quarrel
subsists."[279] The heart of many a Royalist went more with King than
Church.[280]
[Sidenote: _Secessions from the Popular Party._]
These changes left the staunch opponents of Episcopacy more unfettered
in action, and served to consolidate party elements which, for a
long time, had been held in a state of solution. Though it would be
inaccurate to speak of two distinct and compact parties before the end
of 1641, such parties are to be recognized after the beginning of 1642.
Men were then forced to take a side, to assume a definite position.
A grand issue was joined. Half measures were no longer possible.
Questions became distinct. The device and cognizance on each of the
opposite banners might be as unmistakably understood as they were
plainly emblazoned--on the one side, "Church and King," on the other,
"Constitutional Reform in Church and State." There may be quibbles
about the accuracy of such watchwords, but those now mentioned are
as applicable to the two parties of the seventeenth century, as any
familiar ones now are to the political distinctions of the nineteenth.
[Sidenote: 1642, January.]
Politicians who remained staunch in the defence of Parliamentary
power against Kingly despotism were much more agreed in reference to
the State than in reference to the Church. On the negative side of
ecclesiastical revolution they pretty well understood each other. What
should be put down they knew; but not precisely what should be set
up. That prelacy of the Stuart type should be expelled was a foregone
conclusion in 1642; but what sort of rule should take its place,
whether very moderate Episcopacy, or thorough Presbyterianism like
that of Scotland, the leaders of the movement had not determined. It
is, however, quite evident that great modifications in the direction
of Presbyterianism were under contemplation: for Presbyterians were
numerous in London; their leaders were active amongst the citizens;
and the Scotch, through their commissioners, were earnestly doing
all they could to promote the cause which was dear to their hearts.
But the sectaries, who were hated equally by the Presbyterian and
Prelatist, were also on the increase. So numerous indeed had they
become that Bishop Hall, in his last speech in the House of Lords,
declared with spleen unworthy of so good a man, that there were eighty
congregations of them in London, "instructed by guides fit for them,
cobblers, tailors, felt-makers, and such like trash, which all were
taught to spit in the face of their mother, the Church of England,
and to defy and revile her government."[281] Letters of the Royalists
at that period abound in complaints respecting the increased activity
and boldness of people who were condemned as schismatics. Those so
designated had views of ecclesiastical polity very different from
Presbyterian opinions, and were destined to check the progress of the
latter much more effectually than to contribute to the downfall of
Episcopacy. Some of them even (but only some) went so far as to cry,
"Away with the thought of a national Church. It is impossible for a
national Church to be the true Church of Christ. Let us have no Church
but Congregations, and let them be without superintendency." To this
we may add that the separatists in general objected to the distinction
between clergy and laity, and maintained that the Church is a body, all
the members of which are kings and priests.[282]
[Sidenote: _Royal Flight._]
Charles and his Queen left London on the triumphant return of the five
members to Westminster. So hasty was the royal flight, that befitting
accommodation for their Majesties could not be provided. They first
journeyed to Hampton Court, but their subsequent movements were so
secret, that even courtiers did not know whither the royal pair were
bending their steps.[283]
Under Secretary Bere, writing to Admiral Sir John Pennington, on the
13th of January, thus speaks of the startling events then taking
place:--
[Sidenote 1642, January.]
"Sir--The last week I told you but the beginning of those bad ensuing
news we must now daily expect, unless it please God to give a strange
if not miraculous change whereby to settle the distraction of affairs.
The committees, sitting all last week in the city, returned again to
Parliament on Tuesday, and the persons accused with them; for whom
both City and county have shewn so much affection, that they came
accompanied with such multitudes, as had as much of the triumph as
guard: and by water the seamen made a kind of fleet of boats, all armed
with muskets and murdering pieces, which gave volleys all the way they
went. The King and Queen took the day before a resolution to leave
this town, which was also so sudden, that they could not have that
accommodation befitting their Majesties. They went to Hampton Court
that night, next day to Windsor; whence it is conceived they will also
depart as this day, but whither is uncertain. The Prince and Prince
Elector is with them; but few Lords, Essex and Holland being here, who
offered up both their places before his going, but his Majesty would
not accept the surrender. Mr. Secretary Nicholas is likewise gone, and
hath left me to attend such services as shall occur, which, if the King
shall persist in his resolution to retire, will not be much. However,
I will expect the issue, and, if I be not sent for, think myself not
unhappy in my stay, to be freed of an expenseful and troublesome
journey. My Lady Nicholas is much afflicted, and, I believe, as well
as he, would for a good round sum he had never had the seals. My
Lord-Keeper, refusing to put the great seal to the King's proclamation
against the persons accused, did also make tender of his charge, but
howsoever remains still with it; and thus, Sir, you see to what height
of distempers things are come. The public voice runs much against
Bristol and his son, as great instruments of these misunderstandings.
In the meantime they are united in the Houses, and the accord between
the Upper House and Commons grows daily more easy; so that it is hoped
some good and moderate resolutions will be taken for the procuring his
Majesty's return with his contentment (which I pray God may be), for
otherwise there can be expected nothing but confusion.
* * * * *
"I understand even now that the King is remained this day at Windsor,
and it is hoped will not go further; the French Ambassador having been
there, and offering to interpose for an accommodation between his
Majesty and the Parliament, in the King his master's name, whence it is
hoped may ensue some good effect. This day divers Lords are going to
Court with a message from the Houses. I had almost forgotten to tell
you of a new Secretary of State made last Saturday, to wit, the Lord
Falkland, and he hath the Diet."[284]
From Windsor, Charles went to York, which now became a focus of
political and ecclesiastical activity and intrigue. Declarations,
manifestoes, and commands were issued by royal authority from the
North to be contradicted and disobeyed by such members of the two
Houses as continued at their posts in the South.[285] The Puritan
patriots flocked to St. Stephen's with petitions complaining of Popish
malignants, Irish rebels, and other hindrances to reform; while
Royalist Churchmen as eagerly besieged the King's presence chamber in
the ancient archiepiscopal city with addresses lamenting the disorders
of the times, and praying for the support of old-fashioned loyalty,
with Prayer Book, Cathedrals, and Bishops.
[Sidenote: _Attempts at Mediation._]
Attempts to mediate between the two contending powers were made
in vain: for no mediator existed possessing such a character for
impartiality as was needful to reconcile, or even mitigate the
quarrel. Louis XIII. of France offered his services, but his
relationship to Henrietta Maria, and his being a Popish and absolute
monarch, disqualified him for the office of peace-maker.
[Sidenote: 1642.]
The Scotch, with the best intentions, but with even more
unfitness--having taken up arms against Episcopacy, having been in
the pay of Parliament, and having fostered a Presbyterian spirit in
England--proffered their help. The Commissioners, who had just returned
to London, and had taken umbrage at the treatment which they had
received from the Royalist and High Church Lord Mayor--complaining that
he had assigned to them lodgings in a plague-stricken house[286]--made
their appearance at Windsor Castle, in the month of January, to tell
his Majesty, that the liberties of England and Scotland must stand and
fall together, and to ascribe the existing disorders of the country to
the plots of Papists and prelates, who aimed at subverting the purity
and truth of religion.[287] Yet, while thus manifestly taking the
Parliament side in the controversy, the Scotch coolly offered their
services to compose the difference between the King and his subjects.
Nothing could come of this, nor of a renewal of the offer in May sent
from the Council in Edinburgh to Charles, at York, through the hands
of their Chancellor. Even the most impartial advice and the wisest
diplomacy now must have been too late, for the dispute had gone beyond
any healing power, since both parties laid their hands on the scabbards
of their swords, and, in fact, the blade was already half drawn by each.
[Sidenote: _Manifestoes._]
[Sidenote: 1642.]
It is not our province to enter upon the question between King and
Parliament, touching the militia. It is sufficient to observe that,
when such a question arose, war could not be far off. Nor does it
become us to notice the simply political aspects of those voluminous
papers belonging to the Civil War which have been collected by
Rushworth,[288] containing the manifestoes of the two belligerents,
who--like all belligerents down to the Prussians and Austrians this
very summer--writing what they know would be read by the whole world,
sought to throw the whole blame of the quarrel on each other; and
while both were buckling on their armour, neither liked to be seen
striking the first blow. It must be confessed, that in these patiently
prepared, and able, though tedious documents, the thrusts at the enemy
are more effective than the counter-thrusts. Both King and Parliament
wished to be thoroughly constitutional in the form of everything which
they said and did; and on the side where justice lay it was far more
easy for them to be so, when assailing their antagonists than when
they were defending themselves. In other words, it was easy for the
Parliament to prove that the King had violated the Constitution; but
it was not so easy to prove that, when taking all power into their own
hands--especially when taking up arms--they kept within the formal
lines of the English Constitution. The legal fiction of arming in the
King's name against the King's person; the separation of Charles Stuart
and the Sovereign of England into two entities; the defence of the
abstract rule by violence against the concrete ruler, are refinements,
which, however sound they may be in political metaphysics, do not
carry conviction to plain English understandings.[289] Besides, the
reasonings of the great Parliamentary lawyers,--which were learned,
profound, and subtle in the extreme,--require much more of erudition
and perspicacity, that they may be followed and appreciated, than
people commonly, either in that age or this, could be supposed to
possess.[290] But putting legal technicalities aside; looking at the
matter on broad grounds of justice; viewing the government of England
at that period as already unconstitutionalized, by the King's aiming to
rule without Parliaments; considering also that a regal revolution had
in fact been going on for twenty years, the vindication of the popular
party is triumphant. To save what was free in the Constitution, there
was a necessity perforce for breaking down, at all hazards, whatever
of arbitrary power had crept into the working of affairs. The King had
been striving to destroy Parliamentary action, and nothing which he had
conceded could remove the suspicion that he remained the same despot
in spirit which he had ever been, and that now he only waited for a
convenient season, when he might withdraw his concessions, lock up
the doors at Westminster, and, with the key in his pocket, entrench
himself at Whitehall, as absolute a tyrant as his brother of France.
Parliament then was compelled, if it would save the liberties of the
country, to work by itself for the repair of mischief already done. The
State had reached a revolutionary crisis; and only by revolutionary
means could it be brought back to a constitutional and normal
condition. What Quin said to Warburton of the execution of Charles, may
be more fitly applied to the taking up arms against him. When asked by
what law he would justify the deed? The witty actor rejoined, "By all
the laws he had left them." "It is the sum of the whole controversy,"
says Walpole, "couched in eight monosyllables."[291]
[Sidenote: _Manifestoes._]
With the religious points of the declarations we have alone to do. On
the 9th of April, the Lords and Commons declared that they intended a
reformation of the Church; and that, for the better effecting thereof,
they wished speedily to have consultation with godly and learned
divines; and because this would never of itself attain all the end
sought therein, they would use their utmost endeavours to establish
learned and preaching ministers with a good and sufficient maintenance
throughout the whole kingdom; wherein many dark corners were miserably
destitute of the means of salvation, and many poor ministers wanted
necessary provision.[292]
[Sidenote: 1642.]
On the 3rd of June, the King stated that he was resolved to defend the
true Protestant religion established in the reign of Queen Elizabeth,
to govern by law for the future; and that he had no intention to
make war with his Parliament, except it were in the way of defence. In
June the Parliament presented to the King certain propositions. Those
relating to religion were:--That the laws against priests and Popish
recusants be strictly put in execution, and a more effectual course
be taken to disable them from making any disturbance; that the Popish
lords in the House of Peers be deprived of their votes, and a Bill be
drawn for the education of the children of Papists in the Protestant
religion; that his Majesty do consent to such a Reformation of the
Church as Parliament shall devise, and be pleased to give consent
to the laws for removing innovations, pluralities, and scandalous
ministers.[293] The King replied, that as to the Popish peers he was
content that they should give their votes by proxy through Protestant
lords; as to the education of Papists by Protestants, it was the very
thing he wished: but, touching the Reformation to be made of the Church
Government and Liturgy, he told them he hoped that what he had formerly
declared had been sufficiently understood. He had said, in his answer
to the petition presented at Hampton Court, that, for any illegal
innovations which might have crept in, he should willingly concur
in their removal, and that if Parliament should advise the calling
a national synod he should take it into consideration: but he was
persuaded that no Church upon the earth could be found with more purity
of doctrine than the Church of England, that nowhere did government and
discipline exist more free from superstition; and that he would with
constancy maintain them in their purity and glory, not only against
all invasions of Popery, but also from the irreverence of schismatics
and separatists, for the suppression of whom he required their timely
assistance.[294] Much of the royal reply had a specious look, and, if
honestly meant, might have served as a ground for reconciliation; but
to the Parliament, with their deep conviction of the King's insincerity
founded on the experience of years, all his honied phraseology only
seemed to cover hidden stings: and to persons bent on securing
toleration for the sects--a daily increasing party--there was nothing
in the King's words but what shewed the hopelessness of their cause if
left to him.
[Sidenote: _Manifestoes._]
All these documents considered in reference to what they professed,
were so much waste paper. Ostensibly they spoke of peace--virtually
they meant war.
Indications of a coming conflict were visible. The people divided into
two parties, and gave signs by hoisting colours. Tawny ribbons were
mounted in the hats of the Royalists,[295] the Parliamentarians wore
orange. Cavaliers insulted roundheads, and roundheads retaliated on
cavaliers. The latter, it was reported, put the former to the test by
requiring them to swear "a round oath." Pamphlets were published in
vindication of taking up arms. In one of these publications, bearing
the title of "Powers to be Resisted," it is declared, that if it be
lawful in any case to contend with the sword it is in this; and, in
reply to the objection, "No, not with the sword, but with prayer,"
comes the curious _reductio ad absurdum_, "contend against swine
and dogs with prayer! I never heard the like since I was born; a
vain thing, it is sure, to pray the swine not to trample the pearl
under foot, to pray the dogs not to rend you."[296] Disturbance and
insecurity appeared already. The quaint little newspapers of the day
make complaints of assaults and pillage. The Kent waggoners, for
example, were stopped on the road to London, and the well-laden wains
robbed by cavalier banditti.
[Sidenote: 1642.]
Fearful times had already come, and times still more fearful were
at hand. The people of England trembled at the idea of a civil war;
the insurrection of Wyat, and Kett's rebellion, had left grave
recollections in London and Norfolk; but the blood shed in the wars of
the Roses--a more terrible memory--now rose before peaceful households
in crimson colour. Mental agitation increased at the sight of natural
phenomena, which that agitation interpreted as supernatural portents;
omens were detected in slightly unusual incidents, with a feeling akin
to ancient Greek and Roman hope or terror under the augur's divination.
Signs blazed in heaven--noises burst through the air--people talked
of "a celestial beating of drums," and "discharging of muskets and
ordnance for the space of an hour and more." Not satisfied with a
recognition in the skies of the excitements on the earth, each of
the two parties claimed the Divine Being on their own side, and had
wonders to tell of judgments smiting opponents. Royalist churchmen
related a story of a certain Puritan churchwarden who had taken down
a painted glass window, and within two days his wife was exceedingly
tormented in her limbs, raging and crying most fearfully. Parliamentary
Puritans, with equal extravagance, declared how some wicked Royalist
had stuck on the top of a pole a man in a tub to be shot at, and soon
afterwards the Royalist was seized with convulsions. One who drank to
the confusion of Roundheads, on beginning to dance, broke his leg.
The divine indignation on account of setting up May-poles was equally
apparent.[297]
[Sidenote: _The Coming Struggle._]
In connection with all this, hostile preparations were made on both
sides. Members of the House of Commons contributed horses, money,
and plate for the service of Parliament,[298] whilst clergymen and
their families sent spoons, cups, and beakers of silver, to be turned
into money for the payment of the forces.[299] On the other hand, the
friends of the King manifested their loyalty and devotion; but they did
not make sacrifices with the same ardour, and to the same extent, as
their fellow-countrymen who embraced the cause of the opposite party.
Clarendon bitterly complains of the lukewarmness of the Royalists, and
observes, that if they had lent their master a fifth part of what they
afterwards lost, he would have been able to preserve his crown, and
they would have retained their property.
[Sidenote 1642.]
The enlistment of soldiers was still more important than filling the
military chests; and here again the advantage was on the side of the
Parliament; the militia increased more rapidly than the forces
gathered by the King's commission of array.[300] Hampden, as the wheat
ripened in the Chiltern Hundreds, was engaged in raising volunteers;
Cromwell made himself useful in Cambridge and the Fen Country after
a similar fashion; Lord Brooke, too, rode up and down amongst the
fields and orchards of Worcestershire on the same business; and soon
England bristled all over with officers beating up recruits. As
cavalier nobles and squires assembled their tenantry under the royal
standard, there were other landed proprietors who espoused the popular
cause, and who were still more successful in securing followers. At
the same time, town halls and market-places echoed with appeals to
citizens and burgesses to fight for the liberties of their country;
whilst in various places ammunition and stores were collected with
corresponding activity and zeal. Castles and manor-houses were stripped
of armour which had hung for years upon the time-stained walls; and
parish churches yielded up from the tombs of ancient knights rusty
helmets and hauberks. Old bills and bows, matchlocks and pistols,
pikes and lances, and even staves and clubs, were piled up as part of
the extemporised equipment. After a little while, military matters
took something of artistic form, and regiments well accoutred might
be seen marching under the flags of their respective colonels.
Redcoats, following Denzil Holles, tramped along the streets of
London; purple rank and file drew up at Lord Brooke's command under
the tower of Warwick Castle; Hampden saw with pride his green coats
winding through the vales of Buckinghamshire; and Lord Say and Sele
appeared at the head of a regiment in jackets of blue. Haselrig led
on his troops of "lobsters"--so called from the cuirasses worn by
his horsemen; and last, but not least, Cromwell rode at the head
of cavalry, who, from the completeness of their armour, as well as
the invincibleness of their courage, have always been known as his
"Ironsides."[301] The Parliamentary officers tied an orange scarf over
their accoutrements, and the standard of each regiment bore on one side
the colonel's device, and on the other the Parliament's watchword,
"God with us." Presbyterian divines became Parliamentary chaplains, in
which capacity Dr. Spurstow was attached to John Hampden, and Simeon
Ash--"good old Ash," as afterwards he used to be called--followed
Lord Brooke. Marshall and Burgess attended upon the Earl of Essex,
commander-in-chief.
[Sidenote: _Character of the Army._]
The character of the Parliamentary army was not at first what it
afterwards became. When the war commenced, as Cromwell subsequently
remarked, "there were numbered among the soldiery, old, decayed
serving men and tapsters," who dishonoured the cause; Papists,
too, were reported to be in the ranks, strange as that report may
appear. Charles, after the battle of Edgehill, flung the reproach in
the face of his enemies, and declared that all men knew the great
number of Papists who fought under their banner.[302] The Parliament
indignantly repelled the accusation, as utterly inconsistent with
their avowed opinions and designs. So undoubtedly it was, and if any
adherents of the popish religion actually existed in the patriot camp,
they could be there only as Jesuits in disguise, in order to corrupt
the good affection of their comrades; still, it would appear that such
a charge could never have been hazarded but for the miscellaneous
character of the troops at the commencement of the outbreak. Religious
instruction and discipline, however, were speedily instituted; the men
were furnished with copies of the Scriptures;[303] the preaching of
the Gospel prevailed in every place where the forces were quartered;
and various means were employed to improve the moral and spiritual
condition of the soldiers.
[Sidenote: 1642.]
Turning to look for a moment at the Royalists, we observe that there
were sound-hearted Protestants and truly religious men amongst them,
but there were also considerable numbers of Roman Catholics;[304]
others--we fear they were the majority--cared very little, if at
all, for religion, either in substance or form. Some scoffed at sacred
things, and made a boast of their profanity and licentiousness. If
Puritans quoted Scripture, sometimes with more reverence than wisdom,
Royalists could use it with a blasphemous kind of vulgar wit which
it is shocking to record. For example, on an ensign captured in
Dorsetshire, a cannon was painted, with this motto: "O Lord, open thou
my lips, and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise."
[Sidenote: _Nature of the Struggle._]
[Sidenote: 1642.]
The ecclesiastical aspects of the civil war may be seen in the State
Papers issued at the time. For the present, it suffices to observe
that the English and the Scotch differed in their views respecting the
relation in which the religious and political questions of the day
stood to each other. The Scotch entered the field under the banner
of Church, Crown, and Covenant, to carry on a contest, if not purely
religious, yet one which was so in the main. Political considerations
were subordinate: the flag was unfurled, and the sword drawn for
Presbyterianism against Popery and against Prelacy. The rights of
synods, and the interests of pure and undefiled religion, more than the
privileges of Parliament, constituted the precious national treasure,
to secure which the veteran General Leslie encamped with that great
host, which Baillie so graphically describes. In the case of the
Parliamentary army of England, it was otherwise. In the beginning,
indeed, the Lancashire Puritans, when taking up arms, proceeded
entirely on religious grounds, and emulated their more northern
neighbours in that respect. They dreaded the Papists living amongst
them; and it was against those Papists, not against the King, as they
expressly declared, that they threw themselves into the civil war.
During the siege of Manchester, the inhabitants, in their answer to the
Royalist Lord Strange, identified his proceedings with the cause of
the Roman Catholics, many of whom were marching under his flag.[305]
And in connection with this prominence, in one part of the country
at least, given to the religious phase of the conflict, it should be
remembered that English Puritans never counted religion in any of its
relations as less than supreme; that they always professed obedience to
Christianity as the supreme law of life; and that they were thoroughly
religious, as to motive and spirit, in all their military service.
So completely was this the case, that no Crusader could be more
devout, as he buckled on his sword to fight for the rescue of the Holy
Sepulchre, than the Roundhead was, when he buttoned his 'souldier's
pocket bible' in his waistcoat, and shouldered his musket to fight
against Rome and the devil--as well as against political despotism.
But still, this latter object appears most conspicuous in our civil
war. Pym and his associates were emphatically Parliament men: they
engaged in a Parliament struggle, to save the English Constitution from
the absorbing encroachments of the King's prerogative. Ecclesiastical
questions necessarily connected themselves with such as were political,
but the former were kept subordinate; and, when appearing in State
documents, they occupy a far less space, and are treated with much less
minuteness and fulness than the latter. The previous history of our
country had given this shape to the controversy. As prior circumstances
in Scotland had made the war for the Scotch principally one on behalf
of the rights of the Church, prior circumstances in England made it for
the English principally a war on behalf of civil liberty. Through a
victory achieved for the Church, the Scotch intended to establish the
political well-being of their country; through a victory obtained for
the Parliament, the English meant to promote the spiritual interests of
the Church. The relation between the two aspects of the conflict, in
each case, came to be regulated accordingly.
[Illustration]