5.-The culpable share which the Calvinists had in the Murder of King Charles the First.

THE guilt which attaches itself to the two grand denominations of Calvinists, on account of the murder of King Charles the First, is impartially awarded in some of the following pages.

of History at Amsterdam. In a letter to Isaac Vossius, dated April 25, 1645, Grotius says: "I desire greatly to behold all BLONDEL's productions: For he " is exceedingly skilful in history, but the party to which he has addicted himself "sometimes transports him in a wrong direction."

·

It is to this last trait in the character of both, that Dr. Gauden alludes in the following passage: "Shall one David Blondel, or Walo Messalinus, (that is, Salmasius,) men indeed of excellent learning, yet obliged, (as Peter Moulin confesseth of himself, in his epistolary dispute with the most learned Bishop Andrews,) to plead what might be for the enforced stations and necessitated conditions of 'those Presbyterian churches with which they were then in actual fellowship and ⚫ church-communion,'- shall, I say, these two men, who are the greatest props for Presbytery, be put into the balance against all the ancient and modern assertors of Episcopacy? Or shall the votes of the late Assembly [of Divines] be a just counterpoise against all the chief Reformed Divines at home and abroad ?"

Dr. Gauden here ascribes the conduct of these men to their "obligations to plead what might be for the enforced stations of the churches with which they were in actual fellowship." I have read Calvin's and Beza's vituperative remarks on English Episcopacy, and was always accustomed to attribute to their native French politeness, the facility with which those great men "swallowed their own words," and broke out afresh into fulsome praises of well-regulated Episcopacy. But when I behold the same practice in several of their eminent successors, such as Du Moulin, Diodati, Salmasius, Blondel, Le Moyne, De L'Angle, and Claude, (all of whom were, with a single exception, likewise Frenchmen and exceedingly polite,) I am tempted, did not charity forbid, to impute their apparent, (yet often forced,) tergiversation to the native hollowness of the Calvinistic system. Much, indeed, of this " blowing hot and cold" proceeds from the violence of the party, and the awkward predicament in which ministers are placed, when the letters which contain their private opinions about their Calvinistic brethren are published. Such were the painful circumstances in which Le Moyne, De l'Angle, and Claude, were placed, when their confidential letters, (one of which I have quoted in page 421,) were published by Bishop Stillingfleet, at the close of his "Unreasonableness of Separation:" And, after all the ingenious arguments produced by Robert Robinson, of Cambridge, in his "Life of Claude," those who have perused both sides of the question, will at once perceive, that the first letters of these foreign Presbyterians contained their unbiassed opinions, and that their subsequent explanations only went to save their character with the party. I must not conclude this note without informing my readers, that Dr. Hammond wrote an able Reply in Latin to Blondel and Salmasius, the latter of whom (through a feeling of loyal gratitude for his writings against the regicides,) is purposely treated with uncommon respect, for which the Doctor briefly gives this reason in his Preface. The Doctor's production is entitled, Dissertationes Quatuor, quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis et Primæva Antiquitate adstruuntur. To these erudite Dissertations, and to the several English pamphlets written in vindication of them, I acknowledge myself indebted for the more correct views which I have happily gained of Episcopacy. The labours of Dr. Hammond on this argument afford another proof of the immense advantage which an accurate knowledge of the Ancient Fathers gives to a Polemic writer, and the great superiority of the English Clergy in that department of sacred literature.

"

"

(379-391.) The craft and sophistry of the PRESBYTERIAN Calvinists, in this affair, are well expressed by the famous Daillée, one of that party, in his congratulatory letter on the Restoration of King Charles the Second (p. 606) : "When our adversaries formerly would charge the blame of the death of the late king "of England on our religion, you know we could very well guard "ourselves from this reproach, by casting it entirely on the sectaries, "who indeed were only guilty of that horrible crime."-One of these sectaries, LEWIS DU MOULIN, thus removes the burden from his own friends, the INDEPENDENTS, and throws it upon the army: "As for the odium that is cast upon the Congregational Way, and upon those who are called Independents,-as being the more "immediate authors and abettors of the King's murder, and of "taking away Monarchy,—it can easily be wiped off and made "out, that Oliver Cromwell's army, like that of King David's in "the wilderness, was a medley or a collection of all parties that were discontented, as some Courtiers, some Episcoparians, few of any sect, but most of none, or else of the religion of Thomas "Hobbes and Dr. Scarborough; not mentioning the Papists, "who had the greatest hand in the death of King Charles the First, the success of which made them so daring and impious, "as to contrive another most damnable and hellish plot to cut off "the life of his Sacred Majesty [Charles II.] that now is, his "royal son, and our most gracious sovereign."-The Republican OFFICERS and SOLDIERS, by Moulin's special pleading, were furnished with a good excuse for their share of criminality, in the assertion, that the Papists had the greatest hand in the death of "the_King."-See also Richard Baxter's assertion to the same effect, in page 294. The LONG PARLIAMENT was vindicated, I believe by DANIEL DE FOE, from all guilty participation in this foul deed, in the following manner: "How the LONG PARLIAMENT was by military force turned into the Rump, and reduced "to a small party of factious members, who with the army hatched "that barbarous tragedy,-is so universally attested by historians " of all sides, that he must be altogether unacquainted with those "times who does not know it. For the Parliament, who proposed no other end in their war, than to keep the prerogative within its just limits, and to preserve the nations from the unjust invasions "which had been made upon them by evil councillors under "colour of Royal Authority,-having upon a treaty obtained such "concessions from the King as they voted satisfactory for the "ground of a treaty,-were proceeding to accomplish that great and "noble work, until the Sectarian Party in the Army, that had "then conquered the Commanding Part of it, subverted and over"turned all. The members,' says Coke, 'met upon the first of "December 1648, and vote the King's concessions to be a suffi"cient ground for peace; and then adjourn for a week. But when the members were to meet again, they found all the

f

"avenues to the house beset with soldiers, who exclude all "which were not of their faction from entering the House, which "were not one-fourth part, and make the residue prisoners. "farewell Presbytery, &c.'"

66

So

Unfortunately for the parties, who thus ingeniously tried to exculpate themselves, they were all severally guilty participators in this high offence; and though their criminality differed in degree, the members of the Long Parliament were certainly not the least culprits. (P. 406.) On this topic an eminent writer has very justly observed: "How far that part of the Parliament "which sat at Westminster were inclinable to a peace and recon"ciliation with their most injured monarch, their voting his con"finement to Warwick Castle, (when he was not in their hands,) "and their making choice of such a set of preachers, might be "sufficient to convince us, had we no other proofs, of their dis"affection to their lawful sovereign. For, notwithstanding they "have been called A PARLIAMENT OF PATRIOTS, who stood up against tyranny both in Church and State;' and all their pretences "from first to last were, that they were fighting to rescue their sove"reign out of the hands of wicked Councillors, and to bring him in "honour to his Parliament, (a thing frequently suggested by their " preachers;) yet, besides what has been said, it is very apparent "from what follows, how consistent their public declarations and "actions were with each other. For when Mr. Nathaniel WARD, "one of their preachers, (in other respects incendiary enough!) "chanced to speak favourably of the King, and of bringing him "back to the Parliament, they did not desire him to print his sermon, or return him thanks for the great pains he took, according to custom: A favour that, I am convinced, was never "refused before, in the compass of seven years, from near two hundred and thirty sermons I have in my custody, which were "preached before the Two Houses, from November, 1640, to "February, 1648!"

Their apologist gives the date of "the breaking-up of the Long Parliament, December 8, 1648;" and Ward's sermon was preached before the House of Commons, June 30, 1647. His text was Ezek. xix, 14; and when, in application of the words, he urged the Senators to lamentation, he addressed them in the following language:

"Let us also lament our present martial sceptre. We have slighted God's moral and evangelical law; he hath now brought us in some sort under martial law. Let us lament that so good an army should be so ill-guided, as to do what they do without warrant from God or State, so far as wise men can yet discern.

"Let us lament, that a sceptre made of so much gold and silver, and true English metal, should have any part of it of a Westphalian temper. Let us lament that such honourable and serviceable troops should have any mounted upon any saddles.

of John a Leyden's make.-Let us lament that so good an army should advance toward so ill a work, at least in their shows and our fears, as to deliver a Parliament of some eminent members by a Cæsarian section.

"Let us very sadly lament, that some of them of a mechanic alloy should be so bold, as, without warrant from their chief leaders, to plunder us of our King; it was so malepart an act, an act that would have better become a John a Leyden, Knipper Dolling, or Jack Cade, than a loyal English subject! But what if the sword contemn even the rod, what? It is great pity but that sword should meet with a sound rod. If nobody else will provide it, I hope God will. But I trust, Gentlemen, some of you will call to mind what an old Roman, a wise Statesman, wrote to Marcus Brutus in the like case.

"It was too great a disparagement to make our King, who is the Lord paramount of all our freeholds, such a moveable. I believe there have been spirits in the world which would almost scorn to be King again after such a handling. If he went willingly, let us bewail his error.

"Let us lament that there should be any Korahs, Dathans, and Abirams, in an army that lays so much claim to piety.-Let us lament with much spiritual grief, that many of this army have bemeazled so many ignorant countrymen and towns, with impious and blasphemous opinions and rude manners. I marvel much, that any man who fears God closely and uprightly, should fear this army, whereof a great part is said to be so good, that surely they will not, and others so bad, as surely they cannot

hurt us.

"In the first of Ezekiel, there is a description of a strange wheel; it was a wheel, and wheels, and a wheel within a wheel, and four wheels, and there were four flashing and sparkling creatures, guided by a spirit that was in the midst of them; whither the spirit went, they went. The form and motion of this wheel made the heavens look terrible. I could parallel our army to this wheel allusively, but not abusively. If they can so drive their wheels, that they overthrow not Charles his wain, nor break the axletree of the State, I mean the Parliament, and run not the wheels over some of their own loins, and can be so wise as to unload on this side Munster, before they come to battle and slaughter, I dare be bold to say, with all reverence, that either the General or Christ his General, hath more skill in carting than I ever look to have while I live.

"Let us lament, that these our brethren have embarked themselves into an act unparalleled, and an enterprize so snarled and imbranched, that, I dare say, all the eyes amongst them cannot see to the end of all its issues, by a thousand leagues. Let us seriously lament, so seriously, that we may prevent all lamentations by these our brethren and more than fellow-subjects.

Let us lament, that such au English army have cast so much well-deserved honour in the dust, and such a black veil over the face of the Gospel.

"Let us also lament the whole State and people, who feel in part, but do not sufficiently see their sin and sorrow. The anger of the Lord was moved against the people, and moved David to sin against them. (2 Sam. xxiv, 1.) Kings can sin fast enough of themselves, and kindle fires upon themselves and the people. But usually people, by their sins, blow the coals to a flame.

"Lament, that they have a suspended King. Did they know what the Egyptian and Russian States, and what the kingdom of Fez suffered, for more than seven years together, for want of a King, they would lament to purpose.-Israel shall say, we have no King, because we feared not the Lord; what then should a King do to us? (Hos. x, 3.) He that can tell what a King should do to a people that will not fear the Lord, I could earnestly wish him our King's Vice-roy in a country that I know; I should hold him as good and as wise a man as ever was Papirius Censor. What should a King do to his people, embroiled in so many divisions, commotions, and distractions? What should a King do, in a country where there are so many Kings and so few subjects? I dare freely say, that Claudius Gordianus nor the Barbarian Hermite would not willingly at this time take the royal sceptre into their hands, though the subjects, in the plight they are, would swear fealty to them with their hearts pinned upon their tongues' ends. It may be, an Abimelech, or a Perkin, or a Michael de Lando would, if they might.

"Let us lament, that, through these distractions and people's clamours, there is not balm enough, nor sufficient physicians, left in our Gilead to recover our healths."

After this faithful warning, both to Senators and people, of the sad consequences of the army's detention of the person of their King, it cannot be said with truth, that the Long Parliament

Were guiltless of their Monarch's blood!

They could not have been induced to refuse their thanks to WARD, merely on account of the bluntness of his harangue; for several other preachers were still more caustic and severe in their personal remarks. But the Long Parliament is generally, yet very

The following remarks occur in a sermon preached before the House of Com-. mons, May 26, 1647, by George Hughes:

"See the woe and weal of states. Happy land whose King is ennobled by God, and Princes made gracious, and taught by Him even to the use of meat and drink! There our Lord hath the kingdom and his Christ. But woe to that state, where a King, a child, a fool shall reign, an enemy to the Lord; and Princes lustful, gluttonous, drunken, and lascivious, such as must have a breakfast every morning in sin, shall steer by their counsels! Christ is no Law. giver there. This is woeful: The people must mourn when the wicked beareth