1842.] Puritans not exclusively a religious Party. 269 never lose, as long as history lasts. In this strife, Laud for a time was an actor, and as it was against the latter of these parties that he acted, and by which he was at last, in the hour of its triumph, doomed to death, we intend to devote a page or two to a consideration of its principles. The name of Puritan is with many in this day, a term of scorn and reproach. It suggests to them nothing but the picture of a crop-eared, whining fanatic, uncouth in his appearance dealing mightily in the denunciations of the Old Testament-zealous even unto slaying and professing to have "the praises of God in his mouth, and a twoedged sword in his hands." But whence are these views drawn? Nine out of ten, we may venture to say, form their estimate from Scott's novels. Yet we might as well take Wildrake in Woodstock to be a fair specimen of the cavaliers, or judge the tories of our revolution to be fitly represented by the cowboys. If, on the other hand, we resort to history, we find that the enemies of the Puritans have forestalled public opinion, by becoming the chroniclers of the times. The standard work of that age has been written by the grave and dignified Clarendon, from whose courtly prejudices they of course could expect no favor. The infidel Hume, too, hated them both for their religion and politics, and has omitted no opportunity of blackening their characters. Between the two, we wonder not that posterity finds it difficult to believe any thing good of them. And yet, is it not a mistake to look upon them, as we often do, so entirely as a religious party? Their main object, at first, certainly-was political, not ecclesiastical change. Religion indeed mingled with it, and at last became prominent, because, in overturning the throne, they judged it necessary to crush the Church which was bound to it. Their leaders, too, found it useful to call in this kind of enthusiasm to elevate the feelings and zeal of their followers, yet it began not with this. Presbyterianism and liberty became accidentally united, yet they have no more necessary and direct connection in the English Revolution, than infidelity and liberty had in the French. And here we may remark, that we commit the same error in the view we take of the whole English reformation. It was throughout more of a civil than an ecclesiastical change. We see a nation indeed renouncing the dominion of Romish superstition, and adopting a purer faith, and we have reason to thank God that it was so. Yet though the creed of a kingdom was thus purified, it was only because its rulers wished to use religion as the instrument in effecting other changes. Henry the Eighth, who commenced this mighty reform, cared not what were the religious tenets of the land, as long as they did not interfere with his gross licentiousness.* Had the pope consented to pronounce sentence of divorce against Queen Catherine, the king would have been his most dutiful son. But he refused, and then that worthy monarch found it necessary to disown his rule, and take the reins into his own hands. In Scott's novel, the Monastery, when Henry Warden is rebuking Julian Avenel for not marrying Catherine, the fierce baron in a couple of sentences tells the whole story of the English reformation. "Hark ye, Sir Gospeller! trow ye to have a fool in hand? Know I not that your sect rose by bluff Harry Tudor, merely because ye aided him to change his Kate; and wherefore should I not use the same Christian liberty with mine?" Thus it was that England was severed from Rome. Even after it took place, the pope continued to commend Henry for his orthodoxy, while he anathematized him for rejecting his rule.t Heresy still, as of old, was prosecuted as a deadly crime. Except in one single point, the king lived and died as decided a Romanist in spirit as was his daughter Mary. It required, indeed, at that day, a nice tact at drawing theological distinctions, to keep one's head upon one's shoulders. A subject of Henry had the pleasure of living between Scylla and Charybdis. He must call himself *We are well aware, that in this reign reforms were nominally made by decrees of certain convocations, disclaiming some of the popish errors; as those of purgatory and indulgences in 1537 and 1543. Worship also before the images was directed to be offered, not to the image itself, but to God. (See Palmer on the Church, vol. i., p. 466.) Yet the whole spirit of the Church, during the reign of Henry VIII., was essentially and entirely popish. In proof of this, look at the Act of the Six Articles, (called "the whip with six strings,") the death-warrant of so many innocent men, whereby, first, the doctrine of transubstantiation was established by law; second, the communion in both kinds excluded; third, the marriage of priests forbidden; fourth, vows of celibacy declared obligatory; fifth, private masses for souls in purgatory upheld; and, sixth, auricular confession pronounced expedient, and necessary to be retained. These were set forth by authority in 1539. What a specimen of Protestantism! Yet many suffered death under these articles. Strype says, "all these articles were resolved by the Convocation the old popish way, and, by the Parliament that began in April 28, made an act, which was entitled, An Act for abolishing of Diversity of Opinions; and, because of the rigorous penalties, and the blood that was shed thereupon, was called, The bloody Act of six Articles.(Eccles. Mem., vol. i., p. 543.) + Fra Paolo, i., 82. 1842.] Hampden's Contest against Tyranny. 271 a protestant, yet be almost a papist. If he strained at any of the Romish creed except the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy, he was burned as a heretic. If unfortunately he by mistake took too large a dose, and swallowed the supremacy also, he was drawn and quartered as a traitor. Under Elizabeth it was not much better. She rather inclined to the pomp and magnificence of the Romish worship, endeavored to retain the crucifix, pictures, and tapers in her chapel, and, during her reign, marriages took place among the clergy only by connivance. In fact, we think she would scarcely have been a protestant, had not, as in her father's case, the fiery blood of the Tudors rebelled at the thought of submitting to foreign rule. In the brief reign of Edward alone that meek and holy child-do we mark any serious purpose of looking at religious changes with a single eye. With him alone did the gospel seem to be more prominent than politics. We regard, therefore, all these events, as only furnishing a new example of God's overruling providence," in causing the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder of it, restraining." He raised up holy men, to finish in purity what was commenced in passion. Their high example-the lesson which they taught of "suffering affliction and patience" for the truth's sake—and the blood which they shed so freely in martyrdom, purified the Church, and from evil wrought out good for all coming time. And so it was - to return to the Puritans in the beginning of their resistance. They thought more of politics than of religion. The first generation of parliamentary leaders evidently wished only to limit the power of the crown. John Hampden was contending against civil tyranny, and when he made the first decisive move in that mighty contest, by refusing to pay ship-money, he certainly was evincing no opposition to the established Church. When Oliver St. John's gloomy face lighted up with a smile, as he said to Hyde, upon the dissolution of the parliament, that “it must be worse before it could be better," we doubt whether he was thinking about the subject of episcopacy. And the same may be said of all their early generals. Fairfax espoused the popular side on account of a personal insult re * Strype's Annals of Ref., i., 260 + Clarendon, vol. i., p. 230. ceived from Charles. Essex drew his sword only against a faithless and ungrateful king.* "He was," says Clarendon, "as much devoted as any man to the Book of Common Prayer, and obliged his servants to be constantly present with him at it, his household chaplain being always a most conformable man, and a good scholar."+ The Earl of Bedford, too, "had no desire that there should be any alteration in the government of the Church; and had always lived towards my lord of Canterbury himself with all respect and reverence, and frequently visited and dined with him, subscribed liberally to the repair of St. Paul's Church, and seconded all pious undertakings." This was the case also with the Earls of Manchester and Warwick, the latter of whom, we are told, " never discovered any aversion to episcopacy, and much professed the contrary." In fact, the same noble historian assures us, that in the house of peers, the only positive enemies of the Church were the Lords Say and Brooke, and but few united with them in the lower house. The majority felt themselves called upon to redeem the land from a grievous tyranny which rendered property and even life insecure, and, in unsheathing the sword, we cannot but feel that they obeyed the dictates of patriotism. With the ill-fated monarch, whom they at last brought to the scaffold, we confess we have but little sympathy. He was amiable in private life, and that was all. In his public life he had been faithless to every pledge by which a man of honor could be bound. When the cominons had hired him by subsidies to subscribe his assent to the petition of right, -- thus, as it were, purchasing their own liberties, no sooner was the money received than he violated his solemn promise, and endeavored to enforce again the rights he had surrendered. The parliament he had deceived might well exclaim with Strafford, "put not thy trust in princes." Against such a ruler what could avail but force? He was living in the seventeenth century, and dreaming of the fifteenth. We regret indeed his death, a most useless and *When the new levies were made against Scotland, in 1640, he was not reappointed general as he had expected. "It was a great pity," says Clarendon, "that the Earl of Essex was not again taken in, which had infallibly preserved him from swerving from his duty, and he would have discharged his trust with courage and fidelity, and therefore probably with success."-Vol. i., p. 231. + Clarendon, vol. i., p. 350. § Clarendon, vol. i., p. 350. * Clarendon, vol. i., p. 349. 1842.] Devotedness of the King's Adherents. 273 unjustifiable step,-yet even in this he was only" reaping the whirlwind," when he had himself "sown the wind." Posterity, however, has discovered, that if he was a bad king, yet he makes a most admirable martyr. It may be so, but we believe he himself had no intention of becoming one. He certainly had no particular desire to go to the block for his religious principles. In 1641 he accepted the Scotch covenant, which stigmatized the liturgy and canons as popish, and declared episcopacy unlawful.* In 1646, when he needed the aid of the Irish, he agreed, through Lord Glamorgan, to establish popery in that kingdom, on condition of their assisting him with ten thousand men.t And now we are told, that in 1649 he died a martyr to the principles of the Church of England. We had always supposed that martyrs were made" of sterner stuff," and that a gentleman of such a triangular conscience, who could support three forms of faith in less than ten years, as his convenience dictated, could hardly claim a place in their "noble army." We confess, however, that when we see his portrait, as he looks down upon us with that melancholy expression, conveying the idea that even in early life he must have been haunted by a presentiment of his fate, we find it hard to keep our pity from being enlisted. Yet it never rises so high that we should be able, were we members of the Church of England, to declare with an easy conscience, on each thirtieth of January, that we are horribly afraid, lest "the guilt of that sacred and innocent blood may hereafter be visited upon us or our posterity." Like many a better man, the manner of his death has invested him with an interest which he never deserved. Even Laud, who probably was best acquainted with him, has declared, "he knew not how to be, or be made great." We admire, indeed, the generous devotedness of his adherents; nor do we wonder at it. The maxim that "the king can do no wrong," was still in full force, and there were thousands who could not oppose his authority because they religiously believed it was by divine right that "kings ruled and princes decreed justice." The prestige which attended royalty was still undiminished, and even fifty years later, when at the court of Louis XIV., the Duke of Burgundy avowed the doctrine that "kings existed for the * Hume's History of the Reign of Charles I., chap. 53. + Ibid. chap. 58. + Laud's Autobiography, p. 271. NO. XX.-VOL. X. 35 |
