#covenanters

[scotianostra]

September 13th 1645 saw Royalist troops under Marquis of Montrose defeated by Covenanters led by David Leslie at Battle of Philiphaugh.

Exactly one year on from the day they sacked Aberdeen James Grahams makeshift army tasted defeat. The mixture of Highlanders and Irish mercenaries marched into the Borders to disrupt the mustering of the Covenanter levies. On the night of the 12th September they camped at Philiphaugh, just to the west of Selkirk. But Montrose was poorly served by his scouts throughout this campaign.

Most importantly he seems to have been unaware that, on the 6th September, Sir David Leslie had marched north out England with a large Scottish army. On the 11th Leslie had rendezvoused with Lothian forces at Gladsmuir, East Lothian, and marched south. On the night of the 12th, unbeknown to Montrose, the Covenanter army approached Selkirk, beating up the quarters of Montrose’s advance guard.

On the morning of the 13th September, at Philiphaugh, the battle hardened forces of this Covenanter army won the decisive action of the Civil War in Scotland. Montrose’s army was effectively destroyed and, most importantly, the myth of his invincibility was shattered.

Montrose’s reputation was also in tatters and he was never able to rally support in Scotland again, although he did maintain a guerrilla campaign until being ordered by lay down his arms by King Charles, who was himself a prisoner at the time.

Many of the fleeing soldiers were slain by the local people who had suffered severely in the hands of Montrose’s men.

The officers of higher rank were taken to Edinburgh and Glasgow and there executed.

The carnage which followed was horrific even in the context of those times and was to Leslie’s eternal shame. If he did not given the orders which resulted in the following appalling events, he apparently made no effort to stop them.

400 Irish, seeking refuge at Philiphaugh Farm fought until they were all wiped out. The families of the Irish soldiers were herded up and driven into the compound at Newark Castle. There they were brutally murdered and no one was spared. They numbered over 300, almost all women and children.

Years later, in 1810, the foundations of a school was being excavated near Newark, and there was found large quantities of bones and skulls.

The field is known as Slain Men’s Lea.

[cromwellrex2]

Montrose Betrayed: ‘We require and authorise you therefore to proceed vigorously and effectively in your undertaking;’

Charles Throws in his Lot with the Covenanters

Charles II of England c1653. Source: Wikipedia

THE MARQUIS of Montrose, probably one of Charles I’s most steadfast supporters had, after his extraordinary campaigns in Scotland in 1644-45, fled to the continent following his ultimate defeat at Philiphaugh. There he toured the courts of Europe, feted as a defender of monarchy and the ultimate cavalier general. The execution of the King hit the fervently Royalist Montrose particularly hard and the Marquis, vowing hot vengeance on the Commonwealth who had carried out the vile deed, immediately offered his unconditional support to the new King Charles II at his court in Breda in the Dutch Republic. Charles accepted the offer and made Montrose Lieutenant-Governor of the Royalist forces in Scotland in February 1649.

There were of course no Royalist troops as such in Scotland, but the country remained contested. Hamilton’s Engagers had been ousted, but the Covenanter government that had resumed control under Archibald Campbell, Earl of Argyll, ultimately began to assume a similar stance towards the English Commonwealth and the new King, as had its predecessor. Despite the religious dispute that had led the Scots to take up arms against Charles I on at least three occasions, there was no support for republicanism in any part of Scotland. The Commonwealth, dominated as it was by the New Model Army, was viewed by the Covenanters as sectarian, radical and revolutionary and despite the wartime alliance with the English Parliament, as less trustworthy a partner than the new King. Therefore commissioners were duly despatched to Charles’ court in Breda to see if the young monarch could be persuaded, as had theoretically been his father, to adopt the Solemn League and Covenant across the Kingdoms in return for Scottish military help to overthrow the Rump Parliament.

As the Irish Rebellion began to falter, Charles did indeed begin to place more faith in a Scottish alliance as the means by which he could reclaim his father’s throne. Although this effectively meant leaving Ormrond to his own devices in Ireland, the spontaneous eruption of some small scale Royalist rebellions in the north of Scotland, quickly put down, made Charles realise he did not have to put all his eggs into one basket. Montrose was summoned and asked to gather a force of mercenaries to attack northern Scotland and seek to establish a Royalist presence there that could threaten Covenanter and Commonwealth alike.

In March 1650, Montrose landed in Orkney with a small force of 200 German and Danish mercenaries. He found a measure of Royalist support here but little in the way of meaningful military manpower or supplies. Montrose’s planned tactics were again to be the formation of a tough guerrilla force that could undermine Covenanter resolve and inspire a more general rallying to the Royalist cause. However, Montrose remained a figure of fear and hatred to Scottish Presbyterians due to the ferocity of his campaigning during the First Civil War and with negotiations with Charles proceeding, the Covenanters saw no reason to seek compromise with the cavalier Marquis. Unfortunately for Montrose, Charles would use his presence in Scotland as a bargaining chip in his negotiations with the commissioners and no more, and that that was the main value of the Marquis’ quixotic adventure to the King.

In the meantime the commissioners drove a hard bargain. Like the Engagers before them, they insisted that Charles sign the Solemn League and Covenant and in so doing, agree to the introduction of Presbyterianism throughout England. They also required Charles to renounce episcopacy, personally convert to Presbyterianism and ensure his children were raised in the Calvinist Protestant religion. Finally, the King should disavow the campaigns being fought in his name by the Irish Confederates and by Montrose’s small band of fighters in Scotland. Then and only then, would the Covenanter army be prepared to embark on a war to defeat Cromwell and the New Model Army, overthrow the Commonwealth and restore the monarchy in England. Charles hated these terms but he had to face reality: Cromwell had reduced the Irish Rebellion to no more than a series of sieges whereas Montrose’s campaign, although his forces had grown to over 1200 men, was never going to secure significant victory in Scotland. The Puritan Covenanters, anathema though they be to the Anglicanism of his father, offered the surest hope of military and political success in England. On 19th April, 1650, Charles signed the Treaty of Breda with the Scottish commissioners. From that moment, Montrose was on his own.

Whether he appreciated his isolation or not, Montrose continued to carry out his King’s wishes as he understood them. He landed his small force in the Highlands and raised the Royal standard. Montrose then traversed the Highlands trying once again to secure a rallying of clans to the Royal cause, but he was met in the main with indifference. The Marquis took his force further south, pausing near Carbisdale to await what he hoped would be reinforcements. However, a small Covenanter cavalry force, led by Colonel Archibald Strachan, a capable officer with experience of the Scottish civil conflict with the Engagers, attacked Montrose’s men. Although outnumbered, Strachan’s cavalry took Montrose’s inexperienced infantry force by surprise and routed them in a single charge. Montrose escaped from the battlefield and sought refuge with Neil MacLeod of Ardvreck, a former Royalist supporter who promptly handed him over to the Covenanters. Charles, on signing the Treaty of Breda, did send a letter to Montrose, instructing him to disarm, but it never reached him. Even if it had however, it was now too late.

Montrose was taken to Edinburgh in chains on 18th May and was put on trial the following day. The result was a foregone conclusion. Although Montrose defended himself by pleading loyalty to his rightful King, the vengeful Presbyterians were not interested and the Marquis accepted the inevitable sentence of death with a degree of equanimity. But it was an horrendous death: Montrose was hung, drawn and quartered, the fate of traitors and Papists, with his head displayed at Edinburgh and his limbs despatched to Stirling, Perth, Glasgow and Aberdeen, so all Scotland could see the fate of the man who had so infuriated and terrified his enemies. Montrose was an impetuous romantic, guilty of much brutality in the war he waged against the Covenanters in the 1640s, but his loyalty to his monarchs could not be doubted and he deserved better than to be deserted so casually by the King he had served so unstintingly. It was a poor end for the ultimate Cavalier.

As for Charles, his die was cast. In June he set sail for Scotland in fulfilment of his Faustian pact, and with this, his attempt to regain his father’s throne and therefore the commencement of a third civil war, were put in train.

[captain-price-unofficially]

Covenanter tank of the Royal Irish guards Armoured Division during WWII.

[dieinct]

we as transgender family abolitionists truly do love to discuss how the Structure (tm) of the family is the thing which replicates harm and similar but also like all language will be coopted into the realm of the structural. anyway going insane currently about this

[theexodvs]

MRAs: But alimony payments are outrageous!

Me: Do you support abolishing no-fault divorce?

MRAs: No, because men need to be able to get away from their crazy™ wives.

[mindfulldsliving]

Alma 13:1-19 and Redemption Through Priesthood Ordinances

Understanding how Alma 13 applies to our lives today can help us see the continued importance of priesthood ordinances and principles in guiding us to Jesus Christ.

How Priesthood Ordinances in Alma 13:1-19 Point Me to Jesus Christ for Redemption Understanding the priesthood ordinances in Alma 13:1-19 is pivotal for both Latter-day Saints and Evangelical Christians seeking a deeper connection to Jesus Christ. These verses outline the purpose and divine nature of the priesthood, illustrating how it guides believers toward redemption through Christ’s…

[battleforgodstruth]

They That Sow in Tears Shall Reap in Joy - Alexander Henderson (1583–1646)

Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, They That Sow in Tears Shall Reap in Joy – Alexander Henderson (1583–1646) Alexander Henderson Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9596FC0E0148E6F8 A…

[the-big-picture-bible-blog]

How do I know if a Bible verse or passage applies to me today?

QUESTION: Is 1 John‬ ‭2‬:‭12‬-‭16‬ trans-dispensational? ANSWER: Before we evaluate the requested passage, let me first explain the term ‘trans-dispensational” and then provide a few examples of verses that are trans-dispensational and compare them with others that are not. I aim to provide some insights into how we can determine one from the other. The term “trans-dispensational” refers to a…

[bluecollarbiblicalscholar]

The New Perspective on Paul - An Edifying Response

Of all the academic issues that have surfaced of recent history, few have taken root as firmly as this one, in my humble estimation. I can also think of the controversy surrounding the literature of Genesis 1 as equally significant (although dating back further), but this New Perspective on Paul was huge when I first started my undergraduate degree in 2004. The seminarians were into this topic,…

[lindaseccaspina]

Church of the Covenanters -- 1976- Des and Jean Moore Clippings

The township’s Reformed or Cameronian Presbyterians moved their place of services in about 1867 to the former Canadian Presbyterian church on the Eighth Line, later building their present church facing the Mississippi’s Almonte bay– A stranger coming into Almonte from the junction of Highways 29 and 44. 33 miles from Ottawa, it very likely to ask the first person he meets this question: “Say,…

[scotianostra]

15th August 1645 saw the Battle of Kilsyth.

This battle was during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. James Graham, the Marquis of Montrose, defeated General Baillie’s Covenanter Army.

The Covenanter government of Scotland had entered into alliance with the English parliament and had entered the Civil War in England in early 1644, the Scottish army having a dramatic impact in the campaign for the north of England. In response, following the royalists’ dramatic defeat at Marston Moor, the King appointed the Marquis of Montrose as his military commander in Scotland. On 28th August 1644 Montrose raised the royal standard and, for most of the time with little more than 2000 troops, fought a campaign in which he won a series of dramatic successes in the Highlands against the Covenanter forces. Heavily outnumbered, he effectively exploited the terrain to outmanoeuvre the Covenanter army.

Having won victories at Tippermuir, Aberdeen, Fyvie, Inverlochy, Auldearn and Alford he now attempted to break into the Lowlands. This was the only positive news for the embattled Charles I, whose cause was now heading for destruction in England, having just lost the battles of Naseby (Northamptonshire) and of Langport (Somerset). The king’s strategy now moved towards the uniting of Scottish and English royalist forces in a final desperate attempt to salvage the war.

From Alford, the royalists headed south along the east coast making for Glasgow. Two Covenanter forces, under Argyll and Baillie, followed in pursuit. Montrose turned to engage them at Kilsyth, where the route from Stirling to Glasgow skirts south of the Campsie Fells. In the ensuing battle the royalists destroyed the last Covenanter army in Scotland, in what was to prove the high point of their campaign in Scotland.

[martyschoenleber]

Liturgies for a Three Part Day

For many years, I have read the psalter as part of my daily devotions every month. Don’t be impressed. It really isn’t that hard, but it is a discipline. It started when I read somewhere that during the 17th century (I think), one Presbyterian group in Scotland (It might have been the Scottish Covenanters) required pastoral candidates to memorize the book of Psalms! Now that, I thought, was…

[unitedbyprayer]

(via The Great Commandment)

[plong42]

Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, eds. Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views

Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, eds. Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views -

Parker Brent E. and Richard J. Lucas, eds. Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2022. 266 pp. Pb; $30.  Link to IVP Academic Part of IVP Academic’s Spectrum Multiview Book Series, this book compares four views on the continuity of scripture. Brent E. Parker (PhD, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is assistant…

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

In Judaism, one alternative way of referring to converts is "Jews by Choice."

If a parallel term exists in Xtianity I am not aware of it, but I would like to propose that it really should exist, albeit not just in reference to converts but to all Xtians. Every Xtian should get the opportunity to fully understand their faith in context and to make an informed decision to choose it for themselves. As it stands, many Xtians are deeply ignorant about Jewish history (before and after the formation of Xtianity), the original cultural context for the stories in the Old Testament, the cultural Jewish context that Jesus existed and taught in, the critical historical (scholarly) read of these texts, what they probably meant to the Israelites who produced them, and what they mean to Jews today and how we read these same texts differently in our religious context.

This creates a problem, where Xtians are taught only the narrow band of context that their church deems it important for them to know, and even that is frequently inaccurate or so limited in scope as to make it inaccurate by omission.

And this is because the reality is that the Tanakh (that is, the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures that the Old Testament is based on) does not naturally or inevitably lead to the Jesus narrative. If you are starting from a Xtian perspective, and especially if you read the New Testament first and then and only then dive into the Old Testament, the Jesus narrative is obvious to you because you are looking for it, expect to see it there, and are coming at these texts with that reading lens in mind. And it's not that you or anyone else is nuts to see that narrative there - there are plenty of solid Xtian reads of these texts that make sense if you already believe in Jesus as presented by the New Testament.

But what the vast majority of Xtians aren't taught is how to approach the Tanakh from a Jesus-neutral perspective, which would yield very different results.

Now you might fairly ask, why would they *need* to approach the Tanakh with a Jesus-neutral perspective? They're Xtians! Xtians believe in Jesus, that's what makes them Xtians!

My answer is multi-pronged: First, I believe that G-d wants a relationship with all people, and speaks to us in the voice we are most likely to hear. That's inherently going to look different for everyone. And that's okay! G-d is infinite, and each of our relationships with G-d are going to only capture the tiniest glimpse into that infinite Divine. Therefore, second, when approaching religion, everyone sees what they want to see. If you nothing religion but find your spirituality in nature, you're going to come at these biblical texts with that lens and take away from them similar things that one might take away from other cultural mythologies. If you, like me, are coming at these texts with a Jewish mindset, you are going to come away with a portrait of Hashem and our covenantal relationship as Am Yisrael. And, of course, if you read with a Xtian lens, you're going to see the precursor narratives leading up to Jesus. That reading bias is not only understandable but good or at least deeply human. Everyone sees what they want to see in these texts. There is no objective or flawless way to read them, and to claim that there is, is to claim that not only is there only one answer, but only one kind of relationship that G-d wants to have with people, that you personally happen to know what that is, and that everyone else is wrong. I am sorry, but if you believe that - if you truly think that you in particular (and/or the people you happen to agree with) know the mind of G-d, then you do not worship G-d. You worship yourselves, because to know the entirety of G-d would require you to be G-d. There's a term for that. That doesn't mean there aren't wrong answers too. But it does mean that there is no singular unimpeachable reading of the texts. What you see in these texts then, says far more about you than it does about the texts themselves or G-d.

So the question then becomes: Why do you want to see this? (Whatever your "this" is.) If your read of these texts is something you choose, why do you choose to see what you see? And is it a meaningful choice if you are not taught other ways of knowing, other perspectives on these texts, and to think critically while exploring them?

Judaism inherently teaches a multiplicity of opinions on the texts, and maintains that they can be read to mean different things, even at the same time by the same person. Deep textual knowledge and methods for learning more, asking questions, challenging accepted answers as a way to discover new meaning, and respectful disagreement are baked into our culture and methods. Some Xtians of some denominations have analogous processes, although on the whole still emphasize correct unified belief over correct action with a multiplicity of belief. I am not suggesting here that Xtians stop approaching their own scriptures as Xtians or adopt Jewish methods instead. What I am suggesting is that Xtians should be taught a fuller picture of these texts and learn other perspectives so that they (1) understand their own beliefs and why they believe them (or after further inquiry if they believe them), and (2) understand and respect that this is what they are choosing to believe and that it is not the only thing one could reasonably believe. Because (3) if not, they are more susceptible to having their faith shattered at random by something unexpected, and will connect less to their faith as a relationship with G-d and more as an obligation based on an unchallenged world view.

And, frankly? (4) It will help them to be better neighbors, to love their neighbor as themselves, and to give to others the respect that they would like to receive.

Being taught the historical context, Jewish history before and after Jesus, the differences between the Old Testament and the Tanakh, the timeline of the development of Xtianity in relationship to rabbinic Judaism in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, the development of church doctrine and the various splits amongst the denominations, and Jewish readings of the Tanakh would give clarity and desperately needed context to Xtians about their religion. Is there some risk that some people, upon understanding these things would drop out of faith entirely or, like me, discover that they are actually meant to be Jews? Yes, definitely.

But let me let you in on a little secret: you don't want those people to begin with. You really don't. Because the reality is that if a person is not called to relate to G-d through Jesus, eventually that person will learn this about themselves one way or another. If they are given the information and tools to make a meaningful choice, they will part company on good terms. If not, they will likely become disillusioned and leave the church in pain, anger, and even trauma. They will bring that out into the world with them, and spread the bad news about the Good News making it even more likely that other people who were already on the fence will jump ship on bad terms. You cannot trick people into a meaningful relationship with G-d. You can only give them the tools they need in order to explore on their own and the rest is between them and G-d.

And the bottom line is that you don't need to and should not be afraid of knowledge. If your faith cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it deserves that scrutiny tenfold. The people you lose from the flock? You would have lost them anyway, because we aren't in the driver's seat here. G-d is. Hashem called me to be a Jew with just as much love and desire to connect as G-d calls Xtians to the church and to Jesus. A faith examined is a faith deepened or exposed in its weakness. And if it is the latter, don't you want people to know this sooner rather than later in order to fix it?

So my proposition and wish for Xtians is that they become Xtians by Choice. That they delve deeply into the origins and context of their faith so that they can be 100% certain that they understand their Xtian faith and why they choose to relate to G-d through that lens.

[theexodvs]

If I never get divorced, it'll be to preclude even the remote possibility of planning a wedding all over again.