2 July 1644 A.D. Cromwellians defeat Royalist Monarcho-Machs at Marston Moor

2 July 1644 A.D.  Cromwellians defeat Royalist Monarcho-Machs at Marston Moor.

Dr. Rusten tells the story.

Rusten, E. Michael and Rusten, Sharon. The One Year Christian History. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2003.  Available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Christian-History-Books/dp/0842355073/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393302630&sr=8-1&keywords=rusten+church+history

Charles I became the King of England in 1625.  He had married the Romanist daughter of King Henry IV of France, devout Romanists in a land known for slaughtering 1000s of French Huguenots. Charles I had supported the Arminians,  repressed Reformed Churchmen, repressed pulpits, supported the growing forces of Laudians, absolute monarchists, and was soft towards Romanism.

Charles I disturbed Reformed Churchmen, south and north of the Scottish border.

Resentment was growing in England.

The idea of a King as the “Head” of the Church (= Papal idea) did not set well with the Scots Presbyterians.

In 1637, Charles tossed more gasoline on the fire.  He attempted to impose himself as the “King,” “Head,” or “Governor” of the Church of Scotland.  Laud inadroitly—as usual—poured more gasoline on the fire with his inept and hapless remarks, to wit, “We’ll show you how to do real theology.”  One doesn’t say that to Scottish Reformed Churchmen, then or now.  Both tried to impose the Book of Common Prayer on the nation.  Of note, Laud was an Arminian, anti-Genevan, and a little imperialist, if not a billygoat.

The Scottish Reformed Church rebelled.  The National Covenant was signed in 1638 to defend the Reformed faith and Presbyterian government.  The revolt was on against Charles II and “Billy the Goat” Laud.

Charles, however, felt himself pinched for money to put down the revolt.  Never mind that Parliament had not been convened for years.  So, needing Parliament, he convened them for a financial outlay for the war.  But, being a hapless monarchialist, he found an entrenched breed in Parliament unwilling to collect taxes for the war.

In 1642, Charles blundered again.  He arrested four Puritan-inclined Parliamentarians.  Charles I had the support of most Anglicans high in the government along with the nobility. Largely, the Puritans and Parliamentarians were from the merchant classes. What class did John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and John Milton belong to?  Or, the English divines at the Westminster Assembly, but we digress.

The Battle at Marston Moor went down on 2 July 1644.

In the early summer, there was a siege of York. From his headquarters at Oxford, Charles II sent his son, Rupert, and 20K Royalists to York.

The Parliamentarians were forced to retreat a few miles south—to Marston Moor. On 2 July 1644,  Cromwell’s forces repelled the Absolutists in a complete rout.

The King nearwise lost his army and his wife escaped to France.

The sense of the Cromwellians emerges from a letter by Cromwell three days after the battle to the father of a fallen solider who had fallen at Marston Moor:

“Dear Sir,

It is our duty to sympathize in all mercies; and to praise the Lord together, in chastisements or trials, that so we may sorrow together.

Truly England and the Church of God hath had great fervor from the Lord, in this great victory given unto us, such as the like never since this War began.  It had all the evidences of an absolute victory ordained by the Lord’s blessing upon the Godly Party principally.  We never charged but we routed the enemy…The particulars I cannot relate now; but I believe, of twenty thousand the Prince hath not four thousand left.  Give glory, all glory, to God.

Sir, God hath taken away your eldest son by a cannon shot. It borke his leg.  We were necessitated to have it cut off, whereof he died. Sir, you know my own trials this way [his own son had been killed not long before], but the Lord supported me in this, that the Lord took him into the happiness we all pant and long for. There is your precious child full of glory, never to know sin or sorrow anymore.

The Lord be your strength: so prays,

Your faithful and loving brother,

Oliver Cromwell”

Questions

• What circumstances justify resisting the government?
• What biblical warrant is there for war?
• As for the English-Scottish Civil War, which side would you have supported?
• Was this essentially political?
• To what degree was theology involved?
• To what degree was Billygoat Laud involved?
• Why did Billygoat Laud think the Scottish Presbyterians were inadequate?  We they?
• Should the Civil Magistrate, in this case a King, be the “Head,” “Governor,” or “King” of the Church?  Why does England still retain this?  Why haven’t they reformed this?

Romans 13:1-7

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

13 1 He willeth that we submit ourselves to Magistrates: 8 To love our neighbor: 13 To love uprightly, 14 and to put on Christ.

¹ Let ^[a]every ^[b]soul be subject unto the higher ^[c]powers: ^[d]for there is no power but of God: and the powers that be, are ^[e]ordained of God.

² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves condemnation.

^3 [f]For Magistrates are not to be feared for good works, but for evil. ^[g]Wilt thou then be without fear of the power? do well: so shalt thou have praise of the same.

⁴ For he is the minister of God for thy wealth: ^[h]but if thou do evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword for nought: for he is the minister of God to ^[i]take vengeance on him that doeth evil.

^5 [j]Wherefore ye must be subject, not because of wrath only, but ^[k]also for conscience sake.

^6 [l]For, for this cause ye pay also tribute: for they are God’s ministers, applying themselves for the same thing.

⁷ Give to all men therefore their duty: tribute, to whom ye owe tribute: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom ^[m]fear: honor, to whom ye owe ^[n]honor.

Footnotes:

1. Romans 13:1 Now he showeth severally, what subjects owe to their Magistrates, to wit, obedience: From which he showeth that no man is free: and in such sort that it is not only due to the highest Magistrate himself, but also even to the basest, which hath any office under him.
2. Romans 13:1 Yea, though an Apostle, though an Evangelist, though a Prophet: Chrysostom. Therefore the tyranny of the Pope over all kingdoms must down to the ground.
3. Romans 13:1 A reason taken of the nature of the thing itself: For to what purpose are they placed in higher degree, but that the inferior should be subject unto them?
4. Romans 13:1 Another argument of great force: Because God is author of this order: so that such as are rebels ought to know, that they make war with God himself: wherefore they cannot but purchase to themselves great misery and calamity.
5. Romans 13:1 Be distributed: for some are greater, some smaller.
6. Romans 13:3 The third argument taken from the end wherefore they were made, which is most profitable: for that God by this means preserveth the good and bridleth the wicked: by which words the Magistrates themselves are put in mind of that duty which they owe to their subjects.
7. Romans 13:3 An excellent way to bear this yoke, not only without grief, but also with great profit.
8. Romans 13:4 God hath armed the Magistrate even with a revenging sword.
9. Romans 13:4 By whom God revengeth the wicked.
10. Romans 13:5 The conclusion: We must obey the magistrate, not only for fear of punishment, but much more because that (although the Magistrate have no power over the conscience of man, yet seeing he is God’s minister) he cannot be resisteth by any good conscience.
11. Romans 13:5 So far as lawfully we may: for if unlawful things be commanded us, we must answer as Peter teacheth us, It is better to obey God than men.
12. Romans 13:6 He reckoneth up the chiefest things wherein consisteth the obedience of subjects.
13. Romans 13:7 Obedience, and that from the heart.
14. Romans 13:7 Reverence, (which as reason is) we must give to the Magistrate.
    Sources
    Charley, J.W. “Charles I (1600-1649).” NIDCC. 212.
    D’Aubigne, J.H. Merle. The Protector: A Vindication. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1997.
    Hope, N.V. “Charles I (1600-1649).” WWCH. 152-3.
    Sanderson, Edgar. History of England and the British Empire. London: Warne, 1893.

Lee Gatiss: The Great Ejection of the Puritans

http://leegatiss.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/the-great-ejection-of-the-puritans/

The Great Ejection of the Puritans

Today is the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection of the Puritans from the Church of England.

 

1662 may have been a significant year for the Book of Common Prayer. It was not, however, a good year for those to whom the gospel and a good conscience were more precious than the institutional church.

We can rejoice, as we think about the triumph of the Prayer Book and its glorious exposition of the Reformed faith in polished liturgical form. But we also need to remember that 1662 was the year that ‘evangelical’ Puritans were excluded from, and then persecuted by, the established Church of England because they could not accept certain aspects of the new religious settlement.

The main problem in 1662 was not with the Prayer Book as such, but with the terms of subscription to it. That is, the issue was what to do with those who in conscience could not agree to everything contained in that book.

Consensus

For a century or more, the Puritans, as they were called, had been calling for further godly reformation of the Church of England.

They were delighted with the Reformation, but they thought the English church ‘but halfly reformed’ compared to many Reformed churches on the Continent. The Elizabethan Settlement had not gone far enough for them in eliminating superstition and Catholicism from the church.

They wanted to push on with further reform, in response to God’s Word in the Bible. Such people were usually able to remain within the Church of England. How? Because there was a theological consensus between the official stance of the national church and these Puritans.

In general terms, they were all agreed on what the Coronation Oath calls ‘the true profession of the gospel … the Protestant Reformed religion’. Historians speak of a ‘Calvinist consensus’ in England, until at least the 1630s. With that general agreement on primary issues of faith and salvation in place, other issues were usually kept in perspective.

Those who did not conform in every detail of clerical vesture or ceremonial and had issues with phrases here and there in the Prayer Book, continued to play an active and prominent role within the Church of England, some of them at the highest levels.

Yet these people had been in charge of the national church during the Commonwealth and Protectorate under Oliver Cromwell. They hadn’t all been in favour of chopping Charles I’s head off — many had vigorously protested against it — but they had helped to banish the high church royalist bishops and their prayer book.

Revenge

So when Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, he brought with him an Anglican episcopal hierarchy thirsting for revenge. They quickly established themselves in the royal court and grabbed hold of the levers of power.

The king wanted peace and toleration, but the bishops were in no mood for compromise. For much of 1661 they pretended to make concessions to the Puritans, but only until they were comfortable enough in their palaces and in Parliament to deal the Puritans a fatal blow.

The tide turned quite quickly. The bishops and their allies now had such strength that there was no longer any question of Puritans attaining a favourable compromise. The issue for the latter had become whether anything could be salvaged from the wreck of their hopes.

Some of our greatest and most internationally famous theologians were from the more evangelical, puritan sections of the church, but the consensus on primary issues was breaking down. And there was less appetite for tolerance on the part of those holding the reins of power.

Without uniformity and theological consensus on what the gospel is, the bishops looked to enforce outward conformity as their way to bring order to chaos. With a more liberal turn in theology at the Restoration, came a more ceremonial, Catholicising style of church.

It was the imposition of this which had helped cause the Civil War in the first place. Most famously, Archbishop Laud, the most prominent and disliked advocate of this anti-Calvinist movement, had been executed on Tower Hill in 1645 to popular applause.

The Puritans could never accept Laudianism. And hitherto had never been forced to, always finding that the Anglican formularies acted as a sufficient guard against the worst excesses of ceremonialism, superstition and persecution.

But now, things were different; the state decided to enforce uniformity across the board.

Act of Uniformity

The Act of Uniformity in 1662 required all ministers not merely to use the set forms of prayer — which may have allowed them some leeway in practice — but to swear an oath they could not in good conscience swear. They had to give ‘unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed’ in the new Book of Common Prayer.

This, lamented Richard Baxter, was ‘a weight more grievous than a thousand ceremonies, added to the old conformity, with grievous penalty’.

Furthermore, all ministers, lecturers, and even schoolteachers, had to declare themselves entirely in favour of this new political correctness; they had to swear an oath never to attempt to change anything in church or state!

They had to declare ‘that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king … that I will conform to the liturgy of the church of England as it is now by law established’ and renounce the oaths of the Solemn League and Covenant, swearing not ‘to endeavour any change or alteration of government either in church or state’.

What’s more, those who had taken the ‘Solemn League and Covenant’ oath — that they would work hard to reform the church according to the Bible — had to renounce that oath and declare now that it was an illegal thing to promise in the first place.

All this, they felt they could not do. Why? Because it was saying in effect that the Prayer Book and Church of England were inerrant, whereas they only ever said such things about the unerring Word of God itself.

They did not want to perjure themselves, having made oaths to reform the church in Cromwell’s day; and they could not swear on oath that they agreed with every single word of the liturgy.

Great Ejection

Those with the levers of power in their hands sought to impose a new conformity to the Church of England, to which there could be no legally recognised exceptions whatsoever.

All this was to be enacted on St Bartholomew’s Day, 24 August 1662. A significant day, because it was the day that tithes and rents were due, in arrears, to the clergy. So if any clergy did not conform, they did not get paid and were unceremoniously thrown out of their vicarages, often into poverty.
Attempts were made in Parliament and Convocation to water things down — to provide for ejected ministers, perhaps give them more time and soften the terms of conformity. But these votes were all lost by small margins.

The King and the Lord Chancellor claimed to want a more lenient solution. But they were ignored by those voting.

In total, over 1800 ministers — about 20 per cent of the whole clergy — were forced to leave the Church of England in 1662. They were silenced from preaching or teaching by law. They were barred from positions in church or state and forbidden from meeting, even in small groups in their homes.
The penal code against these dissenters was often enforced with unnecessary brutality and malice. They were spied on, taken to court, fined, and sent to plantations in Virginia for hard labour.

Anglican persecutors could now appeal to a formidable legal arsenal which, potentially, made possible a puritan holocaust. Although the worst possibilities were never realised, 1662 began a persecution of Protestants by Protestants without parallel in seventeenth-century Europe. That was the tragedy of 1662.

Remembering 1662 today

There was a ‘Service of Reconciliation’ at Westminster Abbey in February to mark this anniversary, with CofE and URC ministers joining together in an attempt to ‘heal the memories’. But the established church still needs to face some big questions about whether this sort of thing could be repeated.

Will the Church of England again force its own members’ consciences to accept things they see as clearly unbiblical (such as women bishops or homosexuality)? Will it make no exceptions and tolerate no diversity from the current political correctness?

Will the Church of England again become an agent of persecution against Reformed and evangelical Christians? Those who dissent from the prevailing scepticism of the powerful few at the heart of church and government may yet find themselves in an unenviable position, similar to that of Restoration-era Puritans.

The ghosts of 1662 may yet return to haunt the Church of England. Please pray for those attempting to push the denomination back into the great central currents of Christian faith, and away from the dangerous rocks of current fads and baptised worldliness.

This is an article I wrote for the Evangelical Times, Britain’s leading non-denominational evangelical Christian newspaper (published earlier this month). It is reprinted here with their permission, to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection today.

See also my little book The Tragedy of 1662: The Ejection and Persecution of the Puritans.

7 Feb 2012: History of Cromwellian and 1662 Restoration Periods

We missed this "Service of Reconciliation" on 8 Feb 2012 at Westminster Abbey.  It recalls the divisions of the Cromwellian and Restoration periods in England. What follows below is taken from the service booklet for the occasion.  And here we are--old Westminsterians in theology and old Prayer Book Churchmen, putting both together. 

http://static.westminster-abbey.org/assets/pdf_file/0006/55617/Reconciliation-Service.pdf

The significance of this service for both our churches is rooted in history– in the turbulent events of the mid-seventeenth century. Historians still argue over the relative importance of constitutional, religious, and social elements in the English Civil War. What is clear is that the Parliament

summoned in 1640 to provide finance for King Charles I’s policy in Scotland was originally united in rejecting what they regarded as the King’s unconstitutional actions in the eleven years since Parliament had last met. However, when those who thought that the Reformation of 1559 had not gone far enough tried to press their views, that original unity disappeared. With Scottish assistance, the Puritans within the Church of England pressed their demands and a civil war followed.

The Westminster Assembly of Divines (1643–49), appointed by Parliament, produced a new Confession of Faith (never adopted by Parliament) and a Directory of Worship to replace the Prayer Book. The Christian Year disappeared with its feasts and fasts. Episcopacy was abolished and the bishops went abroad or lay low. Cathedral foundations were dissolved. The archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, and later the king, Charles I, fell to the executioner’s axe. Large numbers of traditional Anglican clergy suffered deprivation and hardship, and ministers of Presbyterian and Independent views took their places in the parish churches, cathedrals, and universities. Many ordinary people were

bewildered by what was happening.

Charles II’s promise of liberty to tender consciences in the Declaration of Breda encouraged Parliament to invite him to return, and the monarchy was restored in 1660. But the new Parliament elected in that year was less willing to compromise; and after the failure of churchmen to agree at the Savoy Conference, the Act of Uniformity was approved in 1662. The Prayer Book, and with it episcopal ordination and jurisdiction, was reimposed in its definitive form. Charles I was commemorated liturgically as a martyr.

Those ministers who, on theological grounds, could not accept the requirements of the Act of Uniformity were forced to leave and many hundreds did so. Many suffered hardship in what became known as The Great Ejection. The Church of England suffered too, by the loss of approximately one fifth of its clergy, many of them ministers of the highest calibre, while the ejected ministers (some of whom later conformed)

increasingly threw their lot in with those Baptists and Congregationalists who had not accepted livings during the Cromwellian period.

After a lengthy period of doctrinal flux and social disadvantage, in the early decades of the nineteenth century the Baptists and Congregationalists became organized as denominations of the kind with which we are familiar. In 1839 the Church of Scotland permitted the establishment of a

Synod of English Presbyterians who, in 1849, constituted the ‘Presbyterian Church in England’, comprising Scots and the remnant of English trinitarian Presbyterians of Old Dissent.

In 1863 the English Synod of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland was formed. These two bodies united in 1876 as the ‘Presbyterian Church of England’. This Church and the Congregational Church in England and Wales came together to form the United Reformed Church in 1972.

Thanks to the gradual removal of those civil disabilities to which Dissenters had been subject, and to the work of the ecumenical movement during the past century, feelings have changed. We are now able to acknowledge those events with sadness, without seeking to apportion blame. However, feelings of hurt and bitterness remain lodged in the folk memory of both our churches. There is still a need for reconciliation and the healing of memories so that we can move ahead together in closer visible unity in obedience to our Lord’s will and prayer. We rejoice that in the present climate we are better placed than ever before to address and,

with God’s help, to resolve the theological impediments that continue to divide us.

This year brings the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection, but it also sees the 40th anniversary of the inauguration of the United Reformed Church, which took place in Westminster Abbey, when Archbishop Michael Ramsey was among the guests of honour.

This service contains some echoes of the liturgy of forty years ago.

Above all else, we will join together in the worship of God. At the beginning of the service some words from Richard Baxter, a moderate and reconciling scholar of this period, whom both our traditions honour, will be spoken. In special litanies we will express penitence for our part in perpetuating Christian disunity and offer prayers for the healing of memories and for grace to work more closely together, in study, prayer, and mission, in the future.

Members of the congregation are kindly requested to refrain from using private cameras, video, or sound recording equipment. Please ensure that mobile phones, pagers, and other electronic devices are switched off.

The Abbey is served by a hearing loop. Users should turn their hearing aid to the setting marked T.

The service is conducted by The Very Reverend Dr John Hall, Dean of Westminster.

The service is sung by the Choir of Westminster Abbey, conducted by

James O’Donnell, Organist and Master of the Choristers.

The organ is played by Robert Quinney, Sub-Organist.

Music before the service:

Andrej Kouznetsov, Organ Scholar, plays:

Prelude and Fugue in G Op 37 no 2 Felix Mendelssohn (1809–47)

Psalm Prelude Set II no 2 Herbert Howells

‘Yea, the darkness is no darkness with thee.’ (1892–1983)

Chorale Prelude on the Old 104th Hubert Parry (1848–1918)

Chorale Prelude on Melcombe Hubert Parry

Chorale Prelude on St Ann’s Hubert Parry

Puritans in Canterbury Cathedral

From the Canterbury Cathedral guide book: 

"Many of the Cathedral treasures disappeared at that time [1540, dissolution of the monasteries]. More destruction followed. During the Commonwealth period, Parliamentary soldiers rode into the Cathedral and wantonly broke the organ, the font, and many monuments. They burnt the Prayer Books and smashed the windows. For quite some years afterwards the Cathedral became a desolate place." 

When it says "rode into the Cathedral," they mean on horses. They even used the nave as a horse stable.  Cromwell did the same nonsense in the ancestral home of Exeter, that is, at St. Peter's Anglican Cathedral, Exeter, UK.  Disrupted the Holy Communion services and commanding, "Away with all this tom-foolery!" 

See:  http://canterbury-cathedral.org/assets/files/docs/pdf/schools/A_QuickGuide_to_Canterbury_Cathedral.pdf

Charming chaps, weren't they? Burning Prayer Books?  Good Queen Bess's 1559 Books of Common Prayer with the Thirty-nine Articles?  Behold the Puritans then; behold them now, especially in a nation of exhorters, evangelicals and revivalists.  These enthusiasts have simply tossed rather than burned the Prayer Books...tossing the doctrines, worship and quiet piety of Anglican Prayer Book Churchmanship. There are many assumptions that belay these views. 

Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War

Clips from David Starkey's documentary on the British monarchy. Focuses on Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War.

Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War - 1/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG37jN7wcZE

Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War - 2/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRbz97oAHg

Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War - 3/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA6Zj-8BsuY&NR=1

Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War - 4/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvpqbRHgFxs

The next is a short animation giving reasons for the English Civil War starting. It gives some of the political, economic, military, philosophic and ecclesiastical reasons for it.

Why did the English Civil War start?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzh_7orEBU0&feature=related

The next is a two-part documentary. Part one of the Learning Zone's program on the English Civil War. This first part covers the background to the war including Charles I's character, and ends at Edgehill.

English Civil War - Learning Zone (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuLz8_Wipnk&feature=related

English Civil War - Learning Zone (Part 2). Part two of the Learning Zone's program on the English Civil War. This second part covers the events of the Civil War and questions whether Charles I was a traitor or a martyr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X531vmyR4IE&feature=related

Oliver Cromwell - Hero or Villain?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbjCOfCq0cc&feature=related

Some humour from Monty Python. Oliver cromwell by Monty Python
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ1yPz14LrU&feature=related

Oliver Cromwell