Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:42:32.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scottish Effort to Presbyterianize the Church of England: During the Early Months of the Long Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Winthrop S. Hudson
Winthrop S. Hudson
Affiliation:
Chicago, Ill.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Reformation in Scotland, as Professor John T. McNeill has shown, was never a purely nationalistic movement. John Knox, as well as Sir David Lyndsay, viewed the Scottish church as a part of the universal “kirk,” and directed their efforts toward securing a closer uniformity with the English church and with the Reformed churches on the Continent. But it must be admitted that, until 1638, the principal drive for unity between the English and Scottish churches came from the southern kingdom. In 1638, however, with the restoration of Presbyterianism in Scotland, the process was reversed and the Scots became vigorous in their effort to presbyterianize the Church of England.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1939 , pp. 255 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 MeNeill, John T., Unitive Protestantism (Cincinnati, Ohio, 1930), 78f.Google Scholar

2 This generalization must be qualified to some extent as is shown in Gordon Donaldson, “The Relations between the English and Scottish Presbyterian Movements to 1604” (London University dissertation [1938]). Noted by Knappen, M. M., Tudor Puritanism (Chicago, 1939), 222, 285–6, 298.Google Scholar

3 This matter has been brought to light by Ogilvie, James D., “Church Union in 1641,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society I (1926), 143ffGoogle Scholar., who briefly explores two aspects of the problem. He describes the publishing activity of the Scots in London, and relates the incident of February 24, 1641. For a criticism of his interpretation of the significance of this event see note 88. In Batten, Joseph Minton, “Life of Alexander Henderson,” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, IX (1917–1918), 230fGoogle Scholar, two or three paragraphs are devoted to the Scottish activity in England, but his citations are often untrustworthy and misleading.

4 For these proceedings see SirBorough, John, Notes of the treaty carried on at Ripon between King Charles I and the Covenanters of Scotland,… edited by Bruce, John (London, The Camden Society, 1869).Google Scholar

5 The Scottish Commissioners were John Campbell, Earl of Loudoun; Charles Seton, Earl of Dunfermline; John Leslie, Earl of Rothes; Sir Patrick Hepburn, Baron of Waughton; Sir William Douglas, Baron of Caverss and sheriff of Teviotdale; William Drummond, Baron of Richardtoun; Alexander Wedderburn, town clerk of Dundee; John Smith, bailiff of Edinburgh; Hugh Kennedy, burgess of Ayr; Archibald Johnston of Warriston; and Alexander Henderson, a clergyman. Rushworth, John, Historical Collections…. (London, 1721), IV, 363.Google Scholar

6 Instructions for Scottish Commissioners, reprinted in State Papers, Domestic, 1640–41, 244Google Scholar. Borough, Notes of the treaty … of Ripon, 77. From the Commissioners of Scotland, 24 February, 1640, reprinted in Spaulding, 's Memorials (Spaulding Club edition), ii, 9–10Google Scholar. See also Ibid., 11.

7 Baillie writes: “The King is now very sad and pensive; yet no man has the least intention against him; if they had, the Scots, for all their quarrels, would have their heart's blood: but the farthest is the punishing of false knaves, who have too long abused the King and us all.” Baillie, Robert, Letters and Journals, edited by Laing, David (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1841–1842), I, 353.Google Scholar

8 “We have,” wrote Baillie, “good hopes to get Bishops, Ceremonies, and all away, and that conformity which the King has ever been vexing himself and us to obtain betwixt his dominions, to obtain it now.” Ibid., 278. See also Alexander Henderson, Scots Commissioners, their desires concerning unity in religion, 1641, reprinted in Hetherington, William M., History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (New York, 1853), App. I, 330ff.Google Scholar

9 “At our Presbytery, after sermon, both our noblemen and ministers in one voice thought meet, that not only Mr. A. Henderson, but also Mr. R. Blair, Mr. George Gillespie, and I, should all three, for diverse ends, go to London: Mr. Robert Blair, to satisfy the minds of many in England, who loves the way of New England better than that of Presbyteries used in our Church: I, for the convincing of that prevalent faction against which I have written: Mr. Gillespie, for the crying down of English Ceremonies, for which he has written.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 269.Google Scholar

10 See Aldis, , List of Books printed in ScotlandGoogle Scholar, numbers 968, 970, 971, 972, and 979. Two of these are reprinted in the Appendix of Borough, , Notes of the treaty … at Ripon.Google Scholar

11 Although many secondary writers affirm that the leaders of the House of Commons during the Short Parliament carried on secret negotiations with the Scots, the evidence merely indicates that they were so accused by their adversaries. State Papers, Domestic, 1640, 140–1, 144–5, 153–4Google Scholar. Nevertheless, in the light of similar co-operation during the Long Parliament, the accusation probably had some basis in fact.

12 Oldmixon, John, History of England during the reigns of the Royal “House of Stuart” (London, 1730), 141Google Scholar. See also Gardiner, S. R., History of England, from the Accession of James I, to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1607–1642 (London, 1891) IX, 178–180, 198–199Google Scholar. The Scots had accepted Savile's forged letter as authentic and had expected the peers to come to their assistance with men and money. Baillie, , Letters, I, 257, 261.Google Scholar

13 Late in 1639, Robert Baillie had despatched Alexander Cunningham to sound out public sentiment in England and to discover what support they might expect. Baillie, , op. cit., I, 225–228.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., I, 273.

15 On November 17, Dr. Burges, quoting Jeremiah, reminded the House that Israel was saved by an army from the north. The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, edited by Notestein, Wallace (New Haven, 1923), 39nGoogle Scholar. On November 19, “One of the Burgesses of Newcastle stood up and said, that those parts rather feared mischief by the King's army than by others.” The Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, edited by Halliwell, J. O. (2 vols., London, 1845), II, 253.Google Scholar

16 Rushworth, , op. cit., IV, 12, 17Google Scholar. D'Ewes, , Journal, 2n, 20.Google Scholar

17 Ibid., 39n.; Baillie, , op. cit., I, 273.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., I, 285, 280.

19 Ibid., I, 299.

20 “The people throngs to our sermon … their crowd daily increases.” Ibid., I, 295.

21 On one occasion, Baillie “spent much of an hour in an historic narration … of all that God had done for us, from the maids' commotion in the Cathedral of Edinburgh to that present day: many tears of compassion and joy did fall from the eyes of the English.” Ibid., I, 295. Alexander Henderson preached in Newcastle on the day of the Scots' entry, and a royalist makes this report of his sermon: “The day of their arrival at Newcastle Mr. Henderson preached, who so much forgot this text and the duty of his calling, that he fell into a strange extravagant way of applauding their success and depraving the English, making that the whole subject of his discourse.” State Papers, Domestic, 1640–1641, 29.Google Scholar

22 By December 28, all copies of Baillie's Self-Conviction in London had been exhausted, a new edition had come over from Amsterdam, and he was at work on a revision and a “large supplement.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 284Google Scholar. This revision, Ladensium Autokatakrisis, the Canterburians Self-Conviction … (London, 1641)Google Scholar, was at the printers on February 22, 1641. Ibid., I, 299. On January 23, Henderson, 's The Unlawfulness and Danger of Limited Prelacy, or Perpetual Presidency in the Church, briefly discoveredGoogle Scholar, was put on sale, Ibid., I, 292. (Thomason erroneously lists Baillie as the author.) By February 28, George Gillespie had published his Certain Seasons tending to prove the Unlawfulness and inexpediency of all Diocesan Episcopacy (even the most moderate). Records of the Scottish Church History Society, I, 149Google Scholar. Ready for the press by the same date were: Baillie, 's The Unlawfulness and Danger of Limited Episcopacy. Whereunto is subjoined a short reply to the Modest advertiser, and calm examiner of that Treatise …Google Scholar; Henderson, 's The Governement and Order of the Church of ScotlandGoogle Scholar; Gillespie, 's An assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland, in the points of ruling elders, and of the authority of presbyteries and synodsGoogle Scholar, which was in answer to Bishop Hall's Episcopacy by Divine Sight; and Robert Blair had ready “a pertinent answer to Hall's remonstrance.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 303, 362.Google Scholar

23 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 275.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., 273–4, 275, 280.

25 Reprinted in Spaulding, 's Memorials, I, 363Google Scholar ff., and in Rushworth, , Historical Collections, IV, 113ff.Google Scholar

26 “Our pieces against Canterbury and the Lieutenant are now ready. The first moulding of both was laid on me; when all had perused my two draughts, and our friends in the Lower House considered them, the one was given to Mr. Alexander, the other to Londoun and Mr. Archibald to abridge and polish.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 280Google Scholar. The submitting of Scottish papers to friends in parliament for criticism and suggestion before they were issued seems to have been a customary procedure. Particularly was this true of the papers submitted with the various Scottish “Demands” during the negotiations of the treaty, Ibid., I, 285, 289.

27 Ibid., I, 280.

28 Evidence for collaboration between the Scots and the London group is not conclusive, but it is entirely plausible. When Alexander Cunningham was despatched by Baillie to spy out conditions in England, he was directed to enquire of “a discreet alderman of London” why they did not come to the aid of the Scots during the First Bishops' War. Ibid., I, 226–7. By November 18, five days after their arrival, the Scots knew of the existence of the Root and Branch Petition and why it was being withheld. Ibid., 273. On December 28, Pennington, “with his brethern and some of the town-captains, and some from the Inns of Court” came to express their appreciation to the Scots for their aid. Ibid., 288. Between the Scots and the London merchants existed the possibility of an excellent “squeeze” for the achievement of their mutual objectives. The one provoked the imperative need for funds, while the other controlled the principal means by which such funds could be supplied. When Digby offered a loan of 50,000 pounds, coupled with a denunciation of Henderson's paper of February 24, Pennington immediately came to the rescue by offering a loan of 100,000 pounds. D'Ewes, , Journal, 420–1Google Scholar. Also the Scots knew that the Londoners were to demand the conviction of Strafford as the prerequisite to further loans a full month before such a demand was made in parliament. Baillie, , op. cit., I, 302Google Scholar. Journals of the House of Lords, IV, 206.Google Scholar

29 Harley presented the Ministers' Petition and Remonstrance. D'Ewes, , Journal, 277Google Scholar. Vane and Fieunes were appointed to the committee which was to consider the petitions as representatives of this group. Baillie, , op. cit., I, 302Google Scholar. Both of them spoke for the plan of having parliamentary commissioners to govern the church during the interim until a more permanent government could be established. Rushworth, , op. cit., IV, 176, 293Google Scholar. Nalson, John, Impartial Collection of the Great Affairs of State … (London, 1683), II, 295Google Scholar. Such men as Hampden, Pym, White, Moore, and Stanley were probably the other leaders of this group in the House of Commons. William, Lord Paget and Philip, Lord Wharton on one occasion, at least, served as the spokesmen for the Scots in the House of Lords and indulged in “Some hot reasoning” on their behalf. Baillie speaks of them as “our sure friends.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 290.Google Scholar

30 This group would include the authors of Smectymnum, Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcommen, and William Spurstowe. Cornelius Burges served as spokesman for the group before the committee of the House of Commons. Baillie, , op. cit., I, 302–3, 308Google Scholar. D'Ewes, , op. cit., 369, 379Google Scholar. Also appearing before the committee in favor of the petition were Calybute Downing, of whom Baillie speaks as “my familiar friend,” and a clergyman of Dorset named White, Ibid., 313; Baillie, , I, 286.Google Scholar

31 On December 2, Baillie wrote that the Independents “and the rest who are for the Scots' Discipline, do amicably conspire in one, to overthrow the Bishops and Ceremonies, hoping when these rudera are put away, that they shall well agree to build a new house, when the ground is well sweeped.” Ibid., I, 275. On December 28, he wrote that “there was some fear for these of the new way, who are for the Independent congregations, but after much conference, thanks be to God, we hope they will join to overthrow Episcopacy, erect Presbyterian government and Assemblies, and, in any difference they have, to be silent, upon hope either of satisfaction when, we get more leisure or of toleration, on their good and peacable behavior.” Ibid., I, 287. In the meantime, there had been some worry that the Separatists, by “their impertinence,” might serve to weaken the party opposed to the bishops; but, said Baillie, “we trust, by God's blessing on our labor, to prevent that evil.” Ibid., I, 275, 282. By March 15, Baillie was writing: “All the English ministers of Holland, who are for New-England way, are now here: how strong their party will be here, it is diversely reported; they are all on good terms with us: Our only considerable difference will be about the jurisdiction of Synods and Presbyteries. As for Brownists, and Separatists of many kinds, here they mislike them well near as much as we: of these there is no considerable party … Our questions with them of the new way, we hope to get determined to our mutual satisfaction, if we were rid of bishops; and till then, we have agreed to speak nothing of anything wherein we differ.” Ibid., I, 311.

32 Ibid., I, 287. Also set forth by Vane and Fiennes. Bushworth, , op. cit., IV, 176, 293Google Scholar. Nalson, , op. cit., II, 295.Google Scholar

33 “At this time a General Assembly would spoil all, the far most of their clergy being very corrupt.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 287.Google Scholar

34 One must be careful to distinguish this plan from the proposal of the moderate Anglicans to appoint clerical commissioners.

35 It would have been exceedingly dangerous, and perhaps disastrous, to have had them elected by the congregations at this time, for in many parishes the Anglicans were undoubtedly in the majority.

36 Ibid., I, 282. The italics are mine.

37 Ibid., I, 286–7.

38 “There were many against, and many for the same.” The Scottish Commissioners in London to the Committee in Newcastle, Advocates Library, Edinburgh, 33, 4, 6Google Scholar. Quoted by Gardiner, S. R., The Fall of the Monarchy of Charles I, 1637–1649 (London, 1882) II, 36.Google Scholar

39 The speeches in parliament all begin with a recitation of abuses, but diverge in all directions after the opening paragraph or two.

40 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 303.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., 287.

42 It is necessary to make a careful distinction between a “reformed episcopacy” and “primitive episcopacy.” All factions would echo Tertullian in saying, “Whatsoever is first is true, but that which is latter is adulterous,” and all would pay lip service, at least, to the concept of “primitive episcopacy.” In the debate of February 9, 1641, in the House of Commons, every speaker advocated “primitive episcopacy,” and yet scarcely more than two of them agreed as to the meaning of that term.

43 Ibid., 302–3. A Latin sermon which he had preached before the London clergy, wherein he blamed the bishops for the growth of Arminianism and popery, caused Burges to be brought before the Court of High Commission in 1635. In September, 1640, he conveyed to Charles at York the petition of the London clergy against the “etcetera oath.” Dictionary of National Biography, III, 301Google Scholar. On numerous occasions during the Long Parliament, he appears to have represented the London clergy before the House of Commons.

44 By this, Burges appears to have aroused the fear of the Scots. Baillie writes: “We did suspect him as too much Episcopal, and wished he had not been of the number; but he has such a hand among the ministry, and others, that it was not thought meet to deeairt him; yet, he has carried himself so bravely, that we do repent of our suspicions.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 302–3Google Scholar. In 1643, Burges, anxious not to create an irreparable breach with the episcopal party, protested against the imposition of the Solemn League and Covenant. He was successful in having inserted a clause limiting the type of “prelacy” it was aimed at, which made it possible for the advocates of a reformed episcopacy to sign the Covenant, D.N.B., III, 302.Google Scholar

45 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 286–7Google Scholar. D'Ewes, , op. cit., 313, 314Google Scholar. Clarendon, , The History of the Hebellion and Civil Wars in England (6 vols., Oxford, 1888), I, 271–2Google Scholar, doubts the authenticity of the seven or eight hundred signatures attached to the Ministers' Petition and Remonstrance. It is true that the original signatures were not aflixed to the final document, but Digby and Strangways, for all of their effort in that direction, were unable to uncover anyone who would disavow his subscription. Strangways spoke of thirteen or fifteen in Dorsetshire who subscribed with reservations, but Hampden forced him to confess that their names were not on the final draft, while Burges and Downing testified that their only quarrel was with the length and not with the substance of the remonstrance. D'Ewes, , op. cit., 313, 314.Google Scholar

46 The great majority of secondary writers give little attention to this important document, but of those who do give it some consideration, practically all consider the Ministers' Petition and Remonstrance a moderate stand, not directed against episcopacy, but against its abuse. E.g. Shaw, W. A., A History of the English Church … (2 vols., London, 1900), I, 23–34Google Scholar; and Alexander Gordon, article on “Stephen Marshall,” D.N.B., XII, 1129Google Scholar. Yet this petition was fathered by such a good Presbyterian as Baillie, who spoke little of the London Petition but constantly of this petition, and who speaks of the effectiveness of the other petitions only to conclude: “And above all in that large and grave Remonstrance, some months ago presented to the Honorable Houses of Parliament from the most of the Ministers of England, who has any spark of zeal to the glory of God.” Robert Baillie, Self-Conviction, 11 of “a large supplement.” Even Alexander Gordon recognizes the large part played by that ardent Presbyterian, Stephen Marshall, in the formulation of this document, although he mistakes Marshall for a moderate Anglican of reformist tendencies. D.N.B., XII, 1129Google Scholar. A cursory examination of Smectymnuus will dispell all illusions that Marshall was anything but a Presbyterian.

47 It is true that Alexander Henderson, in his The Unlawfulness and Danger of Limited Prelacy, written just after his arrival in London, had viewed with alarm even bishops in name only. Records of the Scottish Church History Society, I (1926), 146–7Google Scholar. Yet, when confronted by the realities of the situation, he must have been willing to make a concession in regard to terminology, in order to achieve his end in substance. Upon more mature reflection, he undoubtedly discovered that he could not oppose bishops as unscriptural; he could only object to an unscriptural interpretation of that title. Baillie adopted this position as did the author of Certain Reasons tending to prove the Unlawfulness and inexpediency of all Diocesan Episcopacy. Baillie, , Letters, I, 352Google Scholar. Baillie, , Self-Conviction, 34–5Google Scholar, “A postscript for the personate Jesuit Lysimachus Nicanor.” Records of the Scottish Church History Society, I (1926), 144Google Scholar. The most they dared to assert was that bishops, as superior to presbyters, were both unlawful and dangerous. This is not to say that there was any less emphasis upon Presbyterianism as “the” church government of divine institution. Baillie describes this Fabian policy in these words: “To take down the roof first to come to the walls, and, if God would help, not to stay till they raised the foundation: However to go on so far as was possible; leaving, without any legal confirmation, what now they cannot win to till a better time.” Baillie, , Letters, I, 308.Google Scholar

48 Verney Papers. Notes of Proceedings in the Long Parliament, Temp. Charles I (London, Printed for the Camden Society, 1845), 4ffGoogle Scholar. The primary importance of this document is manifest by the fact that in the Journal of the House of Commons the committee to which all of the petitions had been referred is called the “Committee for the Ministers Remonstrance.” Moreover, while the Ministers' Petition and Remonstranee is frequently mentioned after February 9, the London or Root and Branch Petition is given only occasional and incidental notice.

49 There is some confusion here as Verney's note reads: “Bishops not of divine institution, which they challenge.” Ibid., 4. The “Remonstrants” certainly would not challenge that. A subsequent entry, however, clarifies the confusion. On the following page Verney writes: “Bishops challenge themselves to be of divine right.”

50 This matter of the power of sole jurisdiction and ordination seems to have been the point which, separated the Presbyterians and Independents from the Anglicans, and it is here that the “Remonstrants” betray their party affiliation. They protest against “a superiority in sole ordination, and sole jurisdiction, which are not in scripture or antiquity; by virtue of a distinct order superior to a presbyter.” Ibid., 5. And they cite biblical texts “to prove that sole ordination and sole jurisdiction is not in bishops, but the presbyters were equal to them in all things.” Ibid., 8.

51 Smectymnuus Bedwiwus, Being an Answer to a Book, entitled An Humble Remonstrance …, composed by five Learned and Orthodox Divines (London, 1660)Google Scholar. This document, says Baillie who should know, was written “for the most part” by Thomas Young, a Scotsman. Baillie, , Letters, I, 366.Google Scholar

52 Ibid., 152.

53 Ibid., 17, 20.

54 Ibid., 66, 67.

55 This is not true of those men who have left behind them literary evidence of their position at this time, e. g., the authors of Smectymnuus. Nor is it true of such men as are specifically named in contemporary documents as being either Presbyterians, or Independents, although care must be exercised here to determine that the terms are not used merely as general epithets of disapprobation. But, for the most part, since the Scots, the Presbyterians, the Independents and others were working in close co-operation, it is possible only to determine that a man belonged to this general grouping. Also since men's opinions were in flux at this time, the faet that one held certain convictions in 1643 is no guarantee that he held the same convictions in 1641.

56 Hexter, J. H. (American Historical Review, xliv, 29ff)Google Scholar seeks to explode the idea that there were definite Presbyterian and Independent parties during the Long Parliament. While there is much truth in what he says concerning the members of parliament, his thesis does not hold when it comes to the clergy. The members of clergy, immersed in theological thinking, for the most part knew what they wanted, whether it happened to be bishops, presbyteries, or local congregations. Even in parliament some allowance must be made for personal conviction.

57 “The far greatest part are for our discipline.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 287Google Scholar. This should not be accepted uncritically, for Baillie was not without bias. On the other hand, we know that Baillie did not lump all discontented groups together and call them all Presbyterians, but made a careful distinction between the moderate Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Independents, and the Separatists. Furthermore, we know that there had been a strong Presbyterian movement in England scarcely thirty years before, whereas the growth of Independency was just beginning. Also contributing to Presbyterian strength was the prestige of the Reformed churches abroad, and in practically all the contemporary proposals for religious reform there was expressed a desire to secure a closer, uniformity with those continental Protestant bodies. Lastly, a not inconsiderable factor contributing to Presbyterian strength was the prestige enjoyed by the Scots by virtue of their successful struggle against the Laudian prelates. In a short time the Scots were to become a liability, but for the moment they were an asset.

58 Even political expediency could not bring the Presbyterians to co-operate with the Separatists, although we have no record of them refusing such support. It was possible for them to take such a position because the Separatists had little strength in parliament at this time. Nevertheless, they held these sectaries in great dread and Baillie reports that the Independents “mislike them near as much as we.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 311.Google Scholar

59 Baillie writes concerning the Independents: “They are all on good terms with us: Our only considerable difference will be about the jurisdiction of Synods and Presbyteries…. Mr. Godwin, Mr. Burroughs, Mr. Simonds … all of them are learned, discreet, and zealous men…. It were all the pities in the world that we and they should differ in anything, especially in that one, which albeit very small in speculation, yet in practice of very huge consequence: for, make every congregation an absolute and independent Church, over which Presbyteries and General Assemblies have no power of censure, but only of charitable admonition, my wit sees not how incontinent a National Church should not fall into unspeakable confusions, as I am confident that the goodness of God will never permit so gracious men to be the occasions of, let be the authors.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 311Google Scholar. Further evidence of the co-operation of the Independents with the Presbyterians is to be found in Burroughs' record of his visit with the Scots, and in the fact that Henderson wrote the preface to Burroughs' answer to the Petition for the Bishops., Ibid., I, 303. Burroughs, Jeremiah, Irenicum, to the Lovers of Truth and Peace (1646), 156.Google Scholar

60 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 303.Google Scholar

61 “I have a most intimate and dear familiarity with the Archbishop of Armagh, whom I have promised to take lodgings by him in the Covent Garden.” D'Ewes, , Autobiography, II, 253.Google Scholar

62 When Digby was questioning the authenticity of the signatures to the Ministers' Petition and Eemonstranee, D'Ewes was able to rise immediately to his feet and explain the manner in which the remonstrance had been framed. D'Ewes, , Journal, 310, 313–14.Google Scholar

63 Nathaniel Fiennes appears to have acted as the chief spokesman for the group on this occasion. The sudden attack of Rudyard, Digby, and Falkland on the London Petition seems to have caught the other party unprepared. Shaw mistakenly assumes that Fiennes offered “an alternative scheme of his own, a scheme which was subsequently adopted in the Root-and-Braneh debates, and which indicates how even the Puritan mind of England at this time turned from a Presbyterian scheme of government with dread and aversion.” Shaw, W. A., op. cit., I. 35Google Scholar. It was neither a scheme of his own, nor was it subsequently adopted in the Root-and-Branch debates. It was merely the scheme for lay and clerical commissioners which the Presbyterians and Independents had proposed as an integral part of their strategy. Rushworth, , op. cit., IV, 176.Google Scholar

64 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 302.Google Scholar

65 D'Ewes, , Journal, 342, 343Google Scholar; Baillie, , op. cit. I, 302.Google Scholar

66 Baillie, , op. cit., 302–3, 307–8.Google Scholar

67 Ibid., 303, 308. One clergyman present at the sessions of the committee declared that they were all rogues bent on pulling down episcopacy, and that he would shoot Dr. Burges, their leader, with his own hand. D'Ewes, , Journal, 369–70.Google Scholar

68 Ibid., 304.

69 Ibid., 299.

70 Baillie calls them “all Commonwealth's men.” Ibid., 304.

71 Ibid., 297.

72 Journal of the Souse of Commons, II, 78.Google Scholar

73 “The hearty giving of it to us, as to their brethren, did refresh us as much as the money itself.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 297.Google Scholar

74 Nalson, , op. cit., I, 735.Google Scholar

75 They should have heeded the warning of the man who, earlier in February, replied to Henderson's The Unlawfulness and Danger of Limited Prelacy. Although Henderson's book was written supposedly by an Englishman, this man discerned the Scottish authorship and said that it was “an unreasonable for their discipline to be pressed upon us as … for our Liturgy to be pressed upon them.” A Modest Advertisement concerning the present Controversy about Church-government, wherein the main grounds of that book, entitled, The Unlawfulness ana Hanger of Limited Prelacy, are calmly examined (London, 1641). Quoted by Ogilvie, J. D., Records of the Scottish Church History Society, I, 148.Google Scholar

76 Baillie, , Self-Conviction, 36–37 of A postcript …Google Scholar

77 From the Commissioners of Scotland, 24 February, 1641. Reprinted in Spaulding, 's Memorials, II, 9–10.Google Scholar

78 Baillie, , Letters, I, 305Google Scholar. Archibald Johnston wrote concerning this: “On a sudden, a storm has arisen here among us, occasioned by some devilish plot of our adversaries, whereof Traquair is not thought innocent—raising a slander against us, as growing remiss against the two incendiaries and episcopacy, that thereby we might be odious with the people, or, by our clearing ourselves, be odious to the King.” Memorials ana Letters relating to the History of Britam in the Reign of Charles I, collected by Lord Halles, 107.

79 “What just indignation we had against those two incendiaries is known by our accusations …, and by these also, besides our destestation expressed in all our words, writings, and actions, or judgements and intentions, against Episcopacy, both in Scotland and England, are in some measure expressed. We confess it were levity to be found building that which we have been pulling down, or to plant that which we have been plucking up.” From the Commissioners of Scotland, 24 February, 1641. Spaulding, 's Memorials, II, 9.Google Scholar

80 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 305Google Scholar. “This slander forced us to give in to the English commissioners a paper clearing ourselves, whereof some having caused print the copy, and affix it to all the common-places, as the Scots commissioners proclamation.” Hailes, Lord, Memorials, 107.Google Scholar

81 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 305.Google Scholar

82 Ibid., 306. Johnston wrote: “The King has run stark mad at it, and his council has been extremely offended at the printing of it in England, without the King's authority, and, upon our; denial of any order for printing, they mind to recall it by public proclamation. But the King … said … that we were guilty of sedition, and that it was seditious libel, that he would make us repent of it, and that thereby we had lost our privilege, meaning our safe-conduct.” Hailes, Lord, Memorials, 107–8.Google Scholar

83 D'Ewes, , Journal, 418Google Scholar. Sir John Strangways started the furor by his vehement denunciation of the Scottish paper on February 27. Ibid., 417 and note.

84 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 306Google Scholar. In spite of this seemingly unfavorable reaction of the House, it must be noted that they refused to allow Strangways to read the Scottish paper before the House. D'Ewes, , Journal, 417 and note.Google Scholar

85 “Evil will had we to say out all our mind about Episcopacy till the English were ready to join with us in that greatest of questions.” Letters, I, 306Google Scholar. Johnston wrote: “We have been over-rash in suffering this to be printed, till we had formally given in our demand for the removal of episcopacy, with the reasons thereof.” Hailes, Lord, Memorials, 108Google Scholar. Not too much stress should be placed on the phrase “suffering this to be printed,” for on the preceding page, in the same letter, Johnston denies that the Scots authorized the publication.

86 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 306.Google Scholar

87 Letter of Maitland. Hailes, Lord, Memorials, 110.Google Scholar

88 J. D. Ogilvie, it seems to me, places too much significance on the Scottish paper of February 24. He feels that it blasted completely the hopes of the Scots, and that it was then “too late” to repair the damage. Records of the Scottish Church History Society, I, 155Google Scholar. Baillie, for one, was far from dispirited after the initial uproar, as his subsequent letters show. Nor is it true, as Ogilvie affirms, that “Parliament no longer concerned itself about the reformation of the bishops if it could bring to an end their secular powers.” Ibid., 155–6. On the contrary, the various factions in the “united front,” including the Scots, continued their active co-operation, and, after having been diverted for a time by the trial of Strafford, the Boot and Branch Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on May 27. Indicative of the attitude of the lower House toward the Scots is the incident of April 26, when a member was suspended for declaring that many of the Scottish claims were dishonorable and that the Commons not only entertained them half-way but embraced them. Journals of the House of Commons, II, 128.Google Scholar

89 State Papers Domestic, 1640–41, 485–6.Google Scholar

90 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 306–7.Google Scholar

91 Ibid., 307.

92 Reprinted in Hetherington, William M., History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (New York, 1853), Appendix I, 3300.Google Scholar

93 Ibid., 301–2.

94 Ibid., 303.

95 The demand that it be submitted to parliament was linked most likely to some bit of parliamentary strategy, for on March 9, the heads for debate on the Ministers' Petition and Remonstrance had been reported out of committee. Journal of the House of Commons, II, 100.Google Scholar

96 Historical Mss. Commission Reports, X, appendix vi, 139.Google Scholar

97 Ibid., 140.

98 Verney Papers, 4.Google Scholar

99 D'Ewes, , Journal, 459.Google Scholar

100 “On Tuesday the 9th, as I remember, they gave them their first wound: after a long debate, at last unanimously, not ten contradicting, the Lower House decreed to move the Higher House, by bill to take from them voice in parliament. The next day they did the same for the Star Chamber, High Commission, Council, and all other secular courts. One of these days they are to cast down their cathedral deanries, and prebendries; also to spoil them of their usurped ordination and jurisdiction, to erect presbyteries in all the land, and distribute, in an equal proportion, the rents among all the parishes for preaching ministers.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 308.Google Scholar

101 Ibid., 314.

102 Historical Mss. Commission Reports, X, appendix vi, 140Google Scholar. Nevertheless, on April 13, Bristol read The Scots Declaration, concerning Uniformity of Church Government before the House of Lords and at the same time reported on the subsequent exchange of notes. Bristol was thereupon ordered to make the same report at a conference between the two houses. Journals of the House of Lords, IV, 216.Google Scholar

103 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 350.Google Scholar

104 D'Ewes gives the number as seven thousand. D'Ewes, , Autobiography, II, 268.Google Scholar

105 Verney Papers, 67.Google Scholar

106 Ibid., 68.

107 “At swearing and subscribing in the Lower House, it was declared expressly, by the doctrine they meant not the government and ceremonies, and that quickly they shall declare this, by ingiving of Bills against both.” Baillie, , op. cit., I, 352Google Scholar. On May 12, the Commons declared that by “‘the true reformed Protestant Religion, expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England’ … was, and is meant only, the public Doctrine professed in the said Church, so far as it is opposite to Popery, and Popish Innovations; and that the said Words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any Form of Worship, Discipline, or Government; nor of any Bites or Ceremonies of the said Church of England.” Journals of the House of Commons, II, 145.Google Scholar

108 Journals of the Souse of Lords, IV, 233–4.Google Scholar

109 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 351.Google Scholar

110 Journals of the House of Commons, II, 144, 145.Google Scholar

111 Scots Commissioners, their desires concerning unity in religion, 1641. Cited in note 92 in the modern reprinted version.

112 Journals of the House of Commons, II, 148Google Scholar. On June 8, the phrase “and of both Kingdoms” was added to the reply. Ibid., p. 171. For the final statement in the treaty see Rushworth, , IV, 368.Google Scholar

113 Dering seems to have acted as the dupe of the Presbyterian and Independent coalition, for he was not in agreement with the rest of the party. This deception was made possible by the fact that the bill as introduced did not contain the plan of church government which they intended should take the place of episcopacy. On June 21, Dering almost upset the apple cart by proposing his own scheme for the government of the church, Ibid., 293–4; Nalson, , op. cit., II, 295Google Scholar. It should be pointed out that, in spite of the similarity of names, the Root and Branch Bill is not to be identified with the Root and Branch Petition. The Root and Branch Petition had not been reported out of committee and this bill probably was drawn up in accord with the second “head” of the Ministers' Petition and Remonstrance.

114 Baillie, , op. cit., I, 355Google Scholar. Baillie expected “the Bill of abolishing bishops” to effect a great alteration in many things within twenty days, Ibid., 355–6.

115 The negotiations were concluded June 15. It then was ratified by the Scottish parliament and formally signed on August 10. In the meantime, Johnston, Henderson, Gillespie, Dunfermline, Loudoun, and perhaps the rest had returned to Scotland for the sessions of the General Assembly and Scottish parliament. Ibid., 358, 362, 377.

116 Ibid., 364. The letter and the reply of the Assembly are printed in the Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1638–1842 (Edinburgh, 1843) 49–51Google Scholar. Needless to say, the answer which Henderson wrote expressed the judgement of the Assembly against the confusions of Independency. Stephen Marshall was one of the signers of the London letter according to Gordon, Alexander, D.N.B., XII, 1129.Google Scholar

117 This passage is quoted in Shaw, W. A., op. cit., I, 81–2.Google Scholar

118 Ibid., 82. John White seems to have spoken for the group in a speech which follows closely the pattern laid down by Smeetymnuus and the Ministers' Petition and Eemonstrance, and advocates that the bishops be reduced to the rank of presbyters. Printed in Speeches and Passages of this Great and Happy Parliament from the third of November, 1640, to this instant June; 1641 (London, Printed for William Cooke …, 1641), 417–431Google Scholar. The plan still was to appoint lay and clerical commissioners for every shire as an interim form of government until the time was ripe for the calling of a National Assembly. This was disclosed by the young Vane when he interrupted Dering's speech on June 21. Rushworth, , op cit., IV, 293Google Scholar; Nalson, , op. cit., 295.Google Scholar