Page images
PDF
EPUB

try, or the fundamental laws of society; for by the former, the king cannot be tried for his life before any inferior court of justice; nor could they feign any pretence for the latter, without the express consent of the majority of the nation, in their personal or representative capacities, which these gentlemen never pretended. But since all parties have endeavored to throw off the odium of this fatal event from themselves, it may not be improper to set before the reader the sentiments of our best historians upon this head, leaving every one to draw what conclusion from them be pleases.

Not to insist upon the king's servile fondness for his queen and her friends; his resolute stiffness for his old principles of government in church and state; his untimely and ungracious manner of yielding to what he could not avoid; his distant and reserved behavior towards those who were only capable of serving him; and his manifest doubling between the parliament and army, which some very reasonably apprehend were the principal causes of all his misfortunes, Mr. Whitlocke and Mr. Coke lay a good deal of blame upon his majesty's chaplains: the latter reproaches them with insisting peremptorily to the last upon the divine right of episcopacy; and the former forcontinual whispering in the king's ears the importance of preserving the revenues of the church to the hazard of his person and kingdom; and surely if these warm and eager divines could have disentangled his majesty's conscience (which Mr. Whitlocke apprehends was not fully satisfied,) as soon as the cava liers had been dispersed, and the Scots beaten out of the field, the mischief that followed might have been prevented. I will not take upon me to say how far their influene might reach, though his majesty's profound deference to their judgment was notorious; but the conviction does not seem impracticable, when it is remembered the king was of opinion, that what he yielded through the necessity of his affairs was not binding when he should be at liberty; but neither his majesty nor his clergy foresaw the issue.*

Most of the writers on the king's side, as well as the preachers since the restoration, in their anniversary sermons, have with great injustice charged the presbyterians

*Whitlocke's Mem. p. 835. Coke's Detect. p. 331-32.

with bringing the king to the block, contrary to the strongest and most convincing evidence; for though their stiffness for the divine right of presbytery, and their antipathy to liberty of conscience, is not to be vindicated, yet I apprehend enough has been said in the foregoing pages, to clear them from this unrighteous charge ;* if the zeal of the presbyterians for their discipline and covenant were culpable, the behavior of the king and his divines in the opposition was no less so, considering he was a prisoner, and in the hands of a victorious parliament; neither side were sensible of the danger till it was too late, but when the storm was ready to burst on their heads, I do not see what men could do more in their circumstances to divert it, than the presbyteriaus did; they preached and prayed, and protested against it in the most public manner; many of them resigned their preferments because they would not take the engagement to the new commonwealth; they groaned under all the preceding changes of government, and had a principal suare in the restoration of the royal family in the year 1660, without which these anniversary declaimers would never have had an opportunity of pelting them with their ecclesiastical artillery, in the unwarrantable manner they have done.

The forementioned writers, together with Mr. Rapin, in his late history of England, load the independents, as a religious sect, with all the guilt of cutting off the king's head; and with being in a plot, from the commencement of the civil war, to destroy equally king, monarchy, episcopacy, and presbyterianism; but this last-named writer, not being acquainted with their religious principles, constantly confounds the independents with the army, which was compounded of a number of sectaries, the majority of

* Bishop Warburton with Mr. Neal acquits the presbyterians from being parties in the execution of the king: but then he will not allow them merit or virtue, in this instance; but would ascribe it to their not uniting with the independents in other matters, and the opposition which that party made to their two darling points, the divine right of presbytery, and the use of force in religious matters. The reader will judge, how far this is a candid construction of the conduct and motives of the presbyterians; and, at the same time, he will lament, that there should have been any ground for the severe reflection which the bishop subjoins: "Those who were capable of punishing Arians with death, were capable of doing any wickedness for the cause of God." Ed.

whom were not of that denomination. There were no doubt among the independents, as well as among other parties, men of republican principles, who had a large share in the reproach of this day; but besides what has been observed, of some of their number joining with the presbyterians in protesting against the king's execution, the divines of this persuasion had no difference with the presbyterians, or moderate episcopalians, about forms of civil government; the leading officers would have contributed their part toward restoring his majesty to his throne, when he was with the army, upon more equal terms than some other of his adversaries, had they not discovered bis designs to sacrifice them when it should be in his power. In their last propositions they consented to the restoring the king, upon the foot of a toleration for themselves and the episcopal party; leaving the presbyterians in possession of the establishment. Both Whitlocke* and Welwood+ observe, that at the very time of the king's trial the prevailing party were not determined what form of government to set up, 'many having thoughts of making the duke of Gloucester king;" which his majesty being informed of, forbad the duke, in his last interview, to accept the crown while his elder brothers were living. And though Mr. Rapin says, that after the force put upon the members of parliament on the 6th and 7th of December, the house consisted of none but independent members, it is certain to a demonstration, that there were then remaining in the house men of all parties, episcopalians, presbyterians, independents, anabaptists, and others: so little foundation is there for this writer's conclusion, that the independents, and these only, put the king to death.

Dr. Lewis du Moulin, history professor in Oxford, who lived through these times, says, that "no party of men, as a religious body, were the actors of this tragedy, but that it was the contrivance of an army, which, like that of king David's in the wilderness, was a medley or collection of all parties that were discontented; some courtiers, some presbyterians, some episcopalians; few of any sect, but most of none, or else of the religion of Thomas Hobbes and Dr. Scarborough; not to mention the papists, whe * Memor. p. 358. ↑ Ibid. p. 90, vol. ii. p. 367, folio.

had the greatest hand in it of all."* The same learned professor, in his book entitled The Conformity of the Independent discipline, with that of the primitive Christians, published 1680, had a chapter, entitled, An Answer to those who accuse the Independents for having an immediate hand in the death of King CHARLES I. But the times were such that the author was advised not to publish it.†

Mr. Baxter says, "Many that minded no side in reli'gion thought it was no policy to trust a conquered king, and therefore were wholly for a parliamentary government without a king; of these (says he) some were for an aristocracy, and others for a democracy, and some thought they ought to judge the king for all the blood that had been shed; the vanists, the independents, and other sects, with the democratical party, being left by Cromwell to do the business under the name of the parliament of England."

Bishop Burnet says, that "Ireton was the person that 'drove it on, for Cromwell was all the while in suspense about it; Ireton had the principles and temper of a Cas'sius, he stuck at nothing that might turn England into a common-wealth; Fairfax was much distracted in his mind, and changed purposes every day; the presbyteri'ans, and the body of the city were much against it, and were every day fasting and praying for the king's pre'servation. There were not above eight thousand of the 'army about the town, but those were the most engaged ' in enthusiasm, and were kept at prayer in their way almost day and night, except when they were upon duty, so that they were wrought up to a pitch of fury which *struck terror into all people."+

Mr. Eachard and some others are of opinion, that great numbers of papists, under hopes of liberty of conscience, or of destroying episcopacy, joined with foreign priests

"There is doubtless," says bishop Warburton, "a great deal of truth in all this. No party of men, as a religious body, further than 'as they were united by one common enthusiasm, were the actors in this tragedy. (See what Burnet says.) But who prepared the entertainment, and was at the expence of the exhibition, is another question," Ed.

↑ Vind. Prot. Relig. p. 53, 59.
|| Baxter's Life, p. 63.
Hist. Life and Times, vol. i. p. 63, Edin. edition.

and "jesuits against the king. The celebrated author of Foxes and Firebrands has this remarkable passage ;* 'Let all true protestants, who desire sincerely to have an happy union, recollect what a blemish the emissaries of Rome have cast upon those protestants named presbyterian and independent, Rome saying the presbyterians 'brought Charles the first's head to the block, and inde'pendents cut it off; whereas it is certain, that the mem'bers and clergy of Rome, under dissenting shapes, con'trived this murder. Nay, the good king himself was informed, that the jesuits in France, at a general meeting, "resolved to bring him to justice, and to take off his head by the power of their friends in the army."+ Bishop Bramhall in a letter to archbishop Usher, dated July 20, 1654, adds, "Thus much to my knowledge have I seen and heard, since my leaving your lordship, which I 'myself could hardly have credited, had not mine eyes 'seen sure evidence of the same, (viz.) that when the Romish orders, which were in disguise in the parliament 'army, wrote to their several convents, and especially to the Sorbonists, about the lawfulness of taking away the 'king's life, it was returned by the Sorbonists, that it was lawful for any Roman catholic to work a change in gov'ernments for the mother church's advancement, and 'chiefly in an heretical kingdom, and so lawful to make away with the king." Mr. Prynne adds, "that Mr. Henry Spotswood saw the queen's confessor on horseback among the crowd in the habit of a trooper, with his drawn sword flourishing it over his head in triumph, as others did, when the king's head was just cut off; and being asked how he could be present at so sad a spectacle, answered, there were above forty more priests and 'jesuits there besides himself, and when the fatal blow 'was given, he flourished his sword and said, Now the 'greatest enemy we have in the world is dead." But this story does not seem to me very probable, nor is it easy to believe that the papists should triumph in the death of a king, who was their friend and protector in prosperity, * Part iii. p. 188. † Ib. p. 168, 169. Necess. Viud. p. 45.

« PreviousContinue »