« السابقةمتابعة »
he was kept so close, that none of his domestick servants, no not so much as his own Chaplains were suffered to have any access unto him."*
Having stated the various indignities to which King Charles was subjected by his relentless persecutors, Dr. Heylin closes his account thus: "In which conjuncture, 1646, it was thought expedient by the Houses of Parliament, to send commissioners to Newcastle, and by them to present such propositions to his sacred Majesty, as they conceived to be agreeable to his present condition. His Majesty had spent the greatest part of his time since he came to Newcastle, in managing a dispute about Church-government with Mr. Alexander Henderson, the most considerable champion for Presbytery in the Kirk of Scotland. Henderson was possest of all advantages of books and helps, which might enable him to carry on such a disputation. But his Majesty had the better cause, and the stronger arguments. Furnished with which, (though destitute of all other helps than what he had within himself,) he prest his adversary so hard, and gave such satisfactory answers unto all his cavils, that he remained master of the field, as may sufficiently appear by the printed papers. And it was credibly reported, that Henderson was so
"And whereas the then usual law of expulsion was immediately to banish into the wide world by beat of drum, enjoining to quit the town within twenty-four hours, upon pain of being taken and used as spies, and not to allow the unhappy exiles time for the disposal either of their private affairs, or stating the accounts of their respective colleges or pupils; the Rev. Dr. Sheldon, now Lord Bishop of London, and Dean of his Majesty's Chapel Royal, and Dr. Hammond, were submitted to a contrary fate, and by an order from a Committee of Parliament, were restrained and voted to be prisoners in that place, from which all else were so severely driven. But such was the authority and command of exemplary virtue, that the person designed to succeed in the Canonry of Christ Church, though he had ac cepted of the place at London, and done his exercise for it at Oxford, acting as public orator in flattering there the then-preteuding Chancellor, yet he had not courage to pursue his undertaking, but voluntarily relinquished that infamous robbery, and adhered to a less scandalous one in the country. And then the officer who was commanded to take Dr. Sheldon and him into custody upon their designed removal, Colonel Evelin, then governor of Wallingford Castle, (though a man of as opposite principles to church and churchmen as any of the adverse party,) wholly declined the employment, solemnly protesting, that if they came to him they should be entertained as friends, and not as prisoners.
"But these remorses proved but of little effect; the Prebend of Christ Church being suddenly supplied by a second choice, and Oxford itself being continued the place of their confinement: where accordingly the good doctor remained, though he were demanded by his Majesty to attend him in the Isle of Wight at the treaty there, which then was again re-inforced. The pretence upon which both he and the reverend doctor Sheldon were refused, was, that they were prisoners; and probably the gaining that, was the cause why they were so. But notwithstanding the denial of a personal attendance, the excellent prince required that assistance which might consist with absence, and at this time sent for a copy of that sermon which almost a year before he had heard preached in that place. The which sermon his Majesty and thereby the public, received with the accession of several others delivered upon various occasions."-DR. FELL'S Life of Dr. Hammond.
confounded with grief and shame, that he fell into a desperate sickness, which in fine brought him to his grave; professing, as some say, that he died a convert; and frequently extolling those great abilities which, when it was too late, he had found in his Majesty. Of the particular passages of this disputation, the English commissioners had received a full information; and therefore purposely declined all discourse with his Majesty, by which the merit of their propositions might be called in question. All that they did, was to insist upon the craving of a positive answer, that so they might return unto those that sent them; and such an answer they shall have, as will little please them. For though his fortunes were brought so low, that it was not thought safe for him to deny them any thing; yet he demurred upon the granting of such points as neither in honour nor in conscience could be yielded to them. Amongst which, those demands which concerned religion, and the abolishing of the ancient government of the church by Arch-bishops and Bishops, may very justly be supposed to be none of the least. But this delay being taken by the Houses for a plain denial, and wanting money to corrupt the unfaithful Scots, who could not otherwise be tempted to betray their Sovereign; they past an ordinance for abolishing the episcopal government, and setling their lands upon trustees for the use of the state.
Amongst which uses, none appeared so visible, even to vulgar eyes, as the raising of huge sums of money to content the Scots, who from a REMEDY were looked on as the SICKNESS of the common-wealth. The Scots' demands amounted to five hundred thousand pounds of English money, which they of fered to make good on a just account; but were content for quietness sake to take two hundred thousand pounds in full satisfaction. And yet they could not have that neither, unless they would betray the King to the power of his enemies. At first they stood on terms of honour; and the Lord Chancellor Loudon ranted to some tune (as may be seen in divers of his printed speeches,) concerning the indelible character of disgrace and infamy which must be for ever imprinted on them, if they yielded to it. But in the end, Presbyterians on both sides did so play their parts, that the sinful contract was concluded, by which the King was to be put into the hands of such commissioners as the two Houses should appoint to receive his person.
In a succeeding part of this narrative it will be seen that the King remained only four months in the hands of his Presbyterian adversaries, before the Independents in the army seized upon his person. This frustration of their hopes and ultimate designs offended the Scotch Parliament, who deputed the Duke of Hamilton, in 1648, to invade England with a powerful army, and to fight for the King under the disguise of a fresh oath called THE ENGAGEMENT. This expedition and its ostensible purpose were disliked by the General Assembly of Scotland. The Sample of True Blue Presbyterian Loyalty says, This Declaration of the Assembly was made to the estates who had by an Act of Parliament raised an army to go into England, to rescue the King out
The Scots to have one hundred thousand pounds in ready money, and the public faith (which the Houses very prodigally pawned upon all occasions) to secure the other. According
of the hands of the sectaries; which expedition the Assembly of the Kirk opposed, and declaimed against, and afterwards did excommunicate the Duke of Hamilton and the whole army for engaging in that expedition against the consent of the Assembly." In Baylie's recommendation of the Presbyterian government (by authority) he states its mildness, and the infrequent occurrence of excommunication, as circumstances which ought to induce the English nation cordially to adopt it. He says: "It is a singular rarity among them to see any heart so hard as not to be mollified and yield before that stroke be given. Excommunications are so strange in all the Reformed Churches, that in a whole Province a man in all his life will scarce be witness to one; and, among them who are cut off by that dreadful sword, very few do fall in the States hand to be troubled with any civil inconvenience." In the particular instance now adduced, it is true, " very few did fall into the States' hands,' because it was a case in which the civil power and the ecclesiastical were at variance. But these "mild ecclesiastics" proceeded against the delinquents to the extent of their power. "The Commissioners of the General Assembly did, by their acts of Oct. 6, and Dec. 4, 1648, appoint church-censures to be inflicted on those who had been concerned in that Engagement, in order to bring them to repentance. And the following Assembly of July 26, 1649, approved what these Commissioners had done, and farther appointed such of the Engagers as remained obstinate and impenitent, after due process in the Ecclesiastical Judicatories, to be excommunicated." Those who know what a fearful thing a Presbyterian excommunication was in those days, will find no difficulty in forming a due estimate of the intolerance of the Presbytery. But a perusal of the correspondence between "the Commissioners of the General Assembly" and "the Committee of Estates of Parliament," on that occasion, will serve to elucidate the mercenary and cruel spirit which then predominated. The former declared: "We call to record the Searcher of all hearts, the Judge of the world, that our not concurring with your Lordships' proceedings hitherto hath not flowed from want of zeal against sectaries, for the suppression of whom and for the advancement of a work of reformation we are ready to hazard all in a lawful way; nor from any remissness in that which concerus his Majesty's true honour and happiness, and the preservation of monarchical government in him and his posterity; nor from any want of tenderness of the privileges of Parliament; nor from want of sympathy with our afflicted and oppressed brethren in England: nor from partial or sinistrous respect to any party or person whatsoever within the kingdom; but from mere tenderness in the point of securityof religion and the union between the kingdoms, and from the unsatisfactoriness of the grounds of your Lordships' Declaration.-The wars of God's people are called the wars of the Lord. (Num. xxi, 14; 2 Chron. xx, 15.) And if our eating and drinking, much more our engaging in war, must be for God and his glory; (1 Cor. x, 31.) Whatsoever we do in word or deed, we are commanded to do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,' and so for his glory. (Col. iii, 17.) The kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof is to be sought in the first place and before all other things. (Matt. vi, 33.) It was the best flower and garland in the former expeditions of this nation, that they were for God and for religion principally and mainly. But if the principal end of this present engagement were for the glory of God, how comes it to pass that not so much as one of the desires of the Kirk, for the safety and security of religion in the said engagement, is to this day satisfied or granted; but on the contrary, such courses are taken as are destructive to religion? And if God's glory be intended, what meaneth the employing and protecting in this army so many blasphemers, persecutors of piety, disturbers of divine worship, and others guilty of notorious and crying sins? Again, how can it be pretended, that the good of religion is principally aimed at, when it is proposed and declared, that the King's Majesty shall be brought to some of his houses in or near London, with honour, freedom and safety, before eve
unto which agreement his Majesty is sold by his own subjects, and betrayed by his servants; by so much wiser (as they thought) than the traitor Judas, by how much they had made a better market, and raised the price of the commodity which they were to sell. And being thus sold, he is delivered, for the use of those that bought him, into the custody of the Earl of Pembroke, (who must be one in all their errands,) the Earl of Denbigh, and the Lord Mountague of Boughton, with twice as many members of the lower House; with whom he takes his journey towards Holdenby, before remembered, on the third there be any security had from him, or so much as any application made to him, for the good of religion? What is this, but to postpone the honour of God, the liberties of the Gospel, the safety of God's people to a human interest, and to leave religion in a condition of uncertainty, unsettledness, and hazard, while it is strongly endeavoured to settle and make sure somewhat else."
To these remarks the Committee of the Scotch Parliament opposed the following: "We answer by acknowledging and believing, that all the wars of the people of God should be the wars of God, undertaken at the command of those who have lawful authority under God, as were the wars by the command of Moses, Joshua, the judges and kings of Judah, and as undertaken by warrant from God's vicegerents, so for an honest cause, for the glory of God. But whereas it is assumed that this engagement is not such, we deny it; because it hath the warrant of lawful authority-the estates of Parliament and the cause being honest to do a duty commanded of God to our prince, God is glorified by doing that duty. The relieving of our King out of prison is a duty: If my kingdom,' says our Lord, were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.' (John xviii, 36.) Our Lord suppones it was a common duty, that subjects should fight to prevent the captivity of their King: And if a war be lawful to prevent captivity, is it not lawful to deliver him from that base captivity? Are we less obliged in duty to our native prince than Abraham to his kinsman Lot? who engaged in a war for rescuing him, notwithstanding Lot had associated himself in war with wicked men, the Sodomites. (Gen. xiv.) Are we less obliged than David and his associates to their captive wives, who engaged in war for their freedom? (1 Sam. xxx.) As for the duty of honour, for performance whereof we have engaged ourselves, we believe it is a duty commanded by God himself in the fifth commandment. (Prov. xxiv, 22; Pet. ii, 16, 17.) We are forbidden to use our christian liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, for withholding or withdrawing duty. Yea Pagans by the light of nature, reading the law of nature, which is from the God of nature, do use all honour to their kings. Yea holy Samuel, undoubtedly zealous of God's honour, notwithstanding he knew certainly by Divine revelation that God had rejected Saul, yet honoured him before the people. (1 Sam. xv, 30.)" But the most consummate piece of hypocrisy was displayed, when the reverend divines of the General Assembly, who had inculcated the necessity of imposing their covenant on others, could deliberately avow the following sentiments: "The engagement is carried on by such means and ways, as tend to the destroying of religion, by ensnaring and forcing the consciences of the people of God, with unlawful bands and oaths, and oppressing the persons and estates of such as have been most active and zealous for religion and the Covenant. All which is strengthened and authorized by acts of Parliament, appointing that all that do not obey or [that] persuade others not to obey the resolutions of Parliament and Committee anent this engagement, or 'who shall not subscribe the act and declaration of the 10th of June, 1648, 'imposed upon all the subjects, shall be holden as enemies to the cause and to religion.'"-How abhorrent to every christian principle and humane feeling is this attempt, in which the ministers of the gospel of peace and the Scottish legislature vie with each other, to legitimate rebellion by quoting the holy scriptures for their seditious proceedings!
of February: And there so closely watched and guarded, that none of his own servants are permitted to repair unto him. Marshal and Caryl, two great sticklers in behalf of Presbytery, (but such as after warped to the Independents,) are by the Houses nominated to attend as Chaplains.* But he refused to hear them in their prayers or preachings, unless they would officiate by the public Liturgy, and bind themselves unto the rules of the church of England: Which not being able to obtain, he moves the houses by his message of the 17th of that Month, to have two Chaplains of his own. Which most unchristianly and most barbarously they denied to grant him.†
"These two Presbyterian chaplains [Caryl and Marshall] regularly performed divine worship at Holmby-house in Northamptonshire. His Majesty however never attended, but spent his Sabbaths in private; and though they waited at table, he would not allow them to ask a blessing. The Oxford historian, who mentions this circumstance, relates the following curious anecdote: It is said, that Marshall did, on a time, put himself more forward than was meet to say grace; and, while he was long in forming his chaps, as the manner was among the saints, and making ugly faces, his Majesty said grace himself, and was fallen to his meat, and had eaten up some part of his dinner, before Marshall had ended the blessing: but Caryl was not so impudent.'
In the life of Marshall, with relation to the early part of his career, it is observed, "He was as conformable as could be desired, reading divine service, wearing the surplice, receiving and administering the sacrament kneeling approving, commending and extolling episcopacy and the liturgy; observing all the holidays with more than ordinary diligence, preaching upon most of them. This he did so long as he had any hopes of rising that way. His ambition was such, I have great reason to believe, that he was once an earnest suitor for a deanery, which is the next step to a bishopric; the loss of which made him turn schismatic. His son-in-law Nye was heard to say, that if they had made his father a bishop, before he had been too 'far engaged, it might have prevented all the war and since he cannot rise so high as a bishop, he will pull the bishops as low as himself: yea, if he can, lower than he was himself when he was at Godmanchester.'"* It is also related of Marshall, that he once "petitioned the King for a deanery, and at another time for a bishopric, and being refused, his Majesty told him at Holmby, that he [Marshall] would on this account overthrow all."
In a subsequent page (351) it will be seen that his Majesty was ultimately gratified in his desire of enjoying the conversation and prayers of his chaplains. The Presbyterians pretended, that the Independents were the actual murderers of the king, and that themselves were guiltless of the great offence. But let any man reflect on the scandalous and cruel treatment which his Majesty endured at the hands of the Presbyterians, and he will exclaim, The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel! Few circumstances gave them more sensible chagrine than any allusion to the courtesy and respect manifested by the Armylto the captive monarch,-a course of conduct so opposite to the Puritanic severity which the royal sufferer had received fromthe Presbyterians. Listen to the vituperative expressions of Richard Baxter, who to the very close of life could not endure the mention of the greater apparent kindness of the Independents: "While the King was at Hampton Court the mutable hypocrites first pretended an extraordinary care of his honour, liberty, safety, and conscience. They blamed the austerity of the Parliament, who had denied him the attendance of his own Chaplains and of his friends in whom he took most pleasure. They gave liberty for his friends and Chaplains to come to him: they pretended that they would save him from the incivilities of the Parliament and Presbyterians. Whether this were while they tried what terms they could make with him for themselves, or while they acted any other part; it is certain that the King's old adherents began to extol the