Sidor som bilder

self, and the members were chosen by the nation at large, and as freely as any members of parliament ever were ; and if the necessary consequences of that war was the death of the king, (since causa causæ est causa causati,) they are Episcopalians and not Presbyterians, to whom the death of this blessed martyr is to be ultimately ascribed. But to what was he a martyr, but to his own tyranny and duplicity? He would have governed in an arbitrary manner, without any parliament, and actually raised taxes by his own autho. rity; and for this it was that an Episcopalian parliament (for the majority of the members were such) declared war against him. And would not such measures as these justify resistance to any king? Is there nothing sacred in the rights of the people; and are they to be wantonly trampled upon by any person, merely because he is called a king? And if in such a cause a king make war upon his subjects, and occasion the death of thousands of them, is his single life of so much value, as that he ought to be spared for such an enormity ? But, without considering the justice of this measure,* let us see in what manner this tragical event came to pass, and we shall find that, according to all historians, it is not to be attributed to the Presbyterians, who were by far the majority of those who dissented from the Church of England at that time.

It is somewhat remarkable that the parliament which took up arms against Charles I., though originally Episcopalians, became, in general, Presbyterians. But this must have been the effect of their own conviction, and not of any compulsion. Presbyterians, however, as they were, it is well known that the members of this parliament continued to the last well-wishers to the king, and he was not put to death till by an armed force they were overpowered. This armed force was headed by Independents; and against the wishes and earnest remonstrances of the Presbyterians, now upon record, they beheaded the king. After that, the Presby

See Dr. Priestley's “ Essay on the first Principles of Government," 1771, Sect. ii.

+ Baxter says, “ If you ask, what did the Ministers all this while ? I answer, they preached and prayed against disloyalty: they drew up a writing to the Lord General, [Cromwell,) declaring their abhorrence of all violence against the person of the king, and urging him and his army to take heed of such an unlawful act. They presented it to the general when they saw the king in danger; but pride prevailed against their counsels." Relig. Baxt, 1696, p. 64. For an account of ihis Representation, presented Jan. 18, 1648-9, and the names of the 59 « Presby. terian Ministers of London, who subscribed the writing, together with many country ministers," see Calamy's “ Lise of Baxter," Ed. 2, 1713, pp. 60, 61, Note.

Yet to these Presbyterian Remonstrants may be not unfairly applied what Lord

terians were the most active in bringing in his successor Charles II., and without their concurrence he could not have been brought in at all.

So much was Mr. Love, * and some other zealous Presbyterians, suspected of favouring the king, that Oliver Cromwell thought it necessary to put him and one Gibbons to death before his expedition to Scotland.t He protested that he would not march till they were cut off.

Though the Independents who killed the king, might be called Dissenters, as well as the Presbyterians who remonstrated against that measure, they were but a small minority

Orford says respecting the Earl of Anglesey's “ sitting in judgment on the Regicides," (io 1660,) a conduct which he describes as “ pot only a servile complaisance, but glaring injustice." On this transaction Wood “had severely animadverted, though “ the benign author of the Biographia Brittanica extols it as an act of the greatest loyalty and honour."

• The Earl," adds Lord Orford, “ had gone most lengths with those men; in short, had acted with them in open rebellion to his sovereign : the putting to death that sovereign could by no means be the guilty part of their opposition. If a king deserves to be opposed by force of arms, he deserves death : if he reduces his subjects to that extremity, the blood spilt in the quarrel lies on him: the executing him afterwards is a meer formality." Royal and Noble Authors, Ed. 2., 1759, II. pp. 68, 69. See Ather. Oxon. 1692, II. pp. 542, 598; Biog. Brit. I. pp. 195, 196, 203.

On the Remonstrance of the Presbyterian Ministers, compare “ The Interest of England, in the Matter of Religion," (by John Corbett,) 1660, pp. 51, 52, and “ The Presbyteriaus Unmasked," 1676, pp. 108–117. This severe animadvertor on “ The Interest of England" says, justly enough, of these Remonstrants against the execution of Charles I., “ These very men could join with the Presbyterian Lords and Commons in making war against the king, and sending an army to shed his blood in the high places of the field." He adds, “ If God had not had a greater care of his anointed, than of their rebellious pretences, that bullet from the Earl of Essex his canon, which grazed at the king's heels as he was kneeling at his prayers on the side of a bank, had taken away his life; and the Presbyterian religion, (such as it is) had been stained with the bloud of a king." Ibid. pp. 106, 107.

: Christopher Love, “ Minister of the Church of St. Lawrence in the Jewry in Londou." He had been Chaplaiu to the Parliament's Commissioners at the Treaty of Uxbridge in 1645; wheni, according to Ludlow, (Mem. I. p. 150,)“ preaching before them, he averred that the king was a man of blood, and that it was a vain thing to hope for the blessing of God upon any peace to be made with him, till satisfaction should be made for the blood that had been shed."

Mr. Love, however, was one of the 59 Remonstrants in 1648.9, and in 1651 be engaged in a plot to bring in Charles II. Or this treason against the Government in possession, having been convicted before the High Court of Justice, he was beheaded, on Tower-bill, after much intercession for his life. See Athen. Oxon. II. pp. 74–77; Reliq. Baxt. p. 67; State Trials, 1776, folio, I. pp. 83—182, 1720, 8vo. I. pp. 571-621.

Dr. Manton preached a sermon at the funeral of Mr. Love, “ in Lawrence Church," three days after his execution. It was entitled, “ The Saint's Triumph over Death,” and described the deceased“ as a pattern most worthy of imitationa man eminent in grace, a man of a singular life and conversation.” The preacher adds, “ I might speak much more, but I will forbear.” This sermon was immediately published with the “ Imprimatur" of " John Downame," the Parliament's licenser of the press; a magnanimity of which crowned heads, or their counsellors, have been seldom, if ever, capable. See“ A Sermon preached at the Funeral of Mr. Christopher Love-London, printed by J. B., 1651," 4to.

+ See “ An Historical Essay ou the Loyalty of Presbyterians in Great Britain of us.

of them; and therefore, on the supposition that the present race of Dissenters are descended alike from both, and we were responsible for the conduct of our ancestors, it ought not to be imputed to us as a body, but only to a small part

Besides, the Independents of that day did not behead the king from any principles peculiar to their religious persuasion. Cromwell, and the rest who joined him in that action, would have cut off the king, whatever had been their religion or his. They consulted not their religion, but their safety and their ambition. And in all these measures the Independents were joined by the Deists, and men of no religion at all. It can therefore only answer the purposes of faction and of bigotry, and by no means that of truth, to accuse the Dissenters of putting king Charles to death. Had it been considered as an action highly meritorious, I doubt not, our pretensions to it would be far enough from being admitted.

If you read any history of England whatever, you will find this to be the truth of the case, though the very reverse is more than insinuated by Mr. Madan, and he may have authorities unknown to all the world besides. But then he ought not to assert what he has done, without producing them. Without this he has no right to expect that the settled principles and conviction of his heart should become those of youRS.

Mr. Madan, however, having got his historical and political principles from some source or other, is pleased to assert, as a general maxim, that “ the Presbyterian principles are unquestionably republican. As he calls it unquestionable, I imagine he has never questioned it himself, or made any inquiry into the foundation of it; but as you are not bound to adopt his principles without questioning or examination, let us see how they accord both with the history of former times, and with the present state of things, which Mr. Madan, though he may shut his own eyes, cannot conceal from you.

At the time of the civil wars, or, as Mr. Madan will say, during the grand rebellion, the Scots were unquestionably Presbyterians, if ever there were any such people in the world. But though they joined the English till the king was effectually subdued, they remonstrated against putting him to death; and when, after this, England was governed by a republic, the Scotch Presbyterians, whose principles Mr. Madan says were unquestionably republican, were so

Sermon, p. 8. (P.)

[ocr errors]

attached to monarchy, that they not only received Charles II. and made him their king, but, in order to assist him in recovering what they deemed to be his right, they marched an army into England, but were defeated at Worcester, as every person who has read the history of England well knows. Where, then, is the evidence from history of the principles of Presbyterians being unquestionably republican? Mr. Madan, however, asserts this to be the seliled conviction of his heart, and therefore he must either have read some other histories of England, or none at all.

Let us now see whether it appears from the present stute of things, that the principles of Presbyterians be, as Mr. Madan asserts, unquestionably republican; and for this purpose let us look towards Scotland ; and whether Mr. Madan be acquainted with the fact or not, it is well known to others, that Presbyterianism is as much the established religion of that country as Episcopacy is of this. Now, are the Scots at all supposed to be inclined to republicanism, or have they ever been accused, even in the greatest violence of party, of disaffection to the present government, or of any want of attachment to the present royal family? On the contrary, the only people disaffected to government in Scotland, those who joined the Pretender in that country, were Episcopalians, and very few of them Presbyterians.*

If Mr. Madan's maxim be true, that “ the principles of Presbyterians are unquestionably republican,” no nation of Presbyterians would ever have had a king, except one that was forced upon them. But the Scots always had kings, and as much of their own choice as we in England. In all the civil wars, during the time of Mary Queen of Scots, it does not appear that they ever thought of abandoning monarchical government, and erecting a republic. While Mary was a prisoner in England, they made her son their king. That king became afterwards king of England, and

• A few, but not many, Scotish Presbyterians, men of desperate fortunes, joined the late Pretender. Of the English Dissenters, I believe there was not one that took his part. In the first rebellion, Mr. Wood, the Dissenting Minister at Chow bent in Lancashire, took the field bimself at the head of his congregation. In the second, the members of my former congregation at Leeds were regularly, exercised, and prepared to march. One of my uncles, who had been a captain in the army, was an officer. When the rebellions were suppressed, these friends of the family upon the throne (unquestionably republicans, as Mr. Madan, who was not then born, says they were) were graciously pardoned for what they had donc.

In case of a third rebellion, I myself would undertake to raise a company of young men in my present congregation, able and willing to defend his present Majesty, thongh he might not be so ready to pardon us for so doing. It is not the man, but the king, and the present reigning family, as an essential part of the constitution, for which we should fight. (P.)

they have been the descendants of this Presbyterian king, who have reigned in this Episcopalian country, from that time to the present day.

Let us now consider a little the conduct of the Scotch lords and cominons since the union of the two nations. Are they more hostile to monarchy, and the measures of government, than the English members of parliament? The contrary is generally supposed. For though many English lords and commoners oppose the measures of government, there is hardly an example of any Scotchman, either lord or coinmoner, ever doing it. And yet Mr. Madan, ignoraut, I suppose, of all this, will have it that the “ principles of Presbyterians are unquestionably republican."

Mr. Madan will perhaps say, that he meant the Presbyterians in England, exclusive of those in Scotland. But originally they were the very same; and till long after the time of Charles I., in which he charges them with main. taining republican principles, there was no difference whatever between them; and whatever Mr. Madan may think, the English Presbyterians at this day are no more attached to a republican government than those of former times, or those in Scotland; and I challenge him to produce any evidence of his confident assertion. That single, speculative men, Presbyterians or others, may give the preference to that mode of government in theory, is not the question. Mr. Hume evidently had a predilection for it; but was be therefore discontented with this government, or in the least disaffected to it? There never was a more obedient subject. But the Dissenters, as a body, have never shewn any preference of a republican government; though it is easy to assert this, or any thing else, in order to throw an odium on those whom we wish to render generally obnoxious.

In fact, Mr. Madan might with as much truth say, that all Presbyterians are Negroes, * and that we paint our faces

• In the famous contested election at Bristol between the late Lord Nugent (as he afterwards became) and Mr. Beckford, his Lordship told me that he gained his point with the populace, by his friends asserting that Mr. Beckford (who had an estate in Jamaica, and, as I remember, was at that time there) was a Negro, aod the popular cry on his Lordship's side was, No Negro: no woollen hair. They had even (as I think he added) a painted figure of a Negro with such hair carried about the streets. When I asked him how his friends could assert such absurd falsehoods, he replied, that all was fair at an election. Mr. Madan may perhaps think it equally fair in the present contest, to call the Dissenters Republicans; but then he should not have declared that what he asserted was from the settled principles and conviction of his heart, as he hoped for mercy from the God of truth." This was much farther than Lord Nugent went. (P.)

« FöregåendeFortsätt »