presbyterians were plotting for themselves. In their vocabulary, freedom was only another name for the establishment of their religious worship and polity, to the exclusion of all others. While there was any hope of Charles's favouring their designs, they patro nized him; when they found him obstinate in his episcopalian heresy, they denounced him; and when they found the Independents gaining the ascendancy, they carried on a series of intrigues with him and his partizans both of England and France, not so much for the purpose of reinstating him, as of ruining the advocates of toleration. Another obstacle yet more formidable than these was to be found in the army itself. Republican principles were spreading through the ranks with rapid progress. Every day's events served to give them fresh impulse, and to make new converts, to whom it became more and more evident, that the monarchy could never be restored under so faithless a head as Charles. It was also evident that if the nation were not speedily settled, all would run into confusion. Despairing of all other methods in that unhappy state of affairs, Cromwell, without any dereliction of principle, joined his own soldiers in seeking to establish a republic. Insurrections in various parts of England and Wales, and the invasion of the Scotch at the instigation of Charles, with threatening dangers on all sides arising from the intrigues of the royalists and presbyterians, led on to the great catastrophe. On the 30th January, 1649, the self-doomed monarch was beheaded, in front of Whitehall, and shortly after, England was declared to be a free commonwealth.

The execution of the king was an act respecting which opinion is still greatly divided. Some applaud

it as a deed of justice on a great delinquent.* Others consider it both as a crime and an error.t Perhaps a century hence the world may come to an impartial verdict. At present, we are neither sufficiently near to the scene itself, to appreciate the motives and difficulties of those who brought it about; nor sufficiently remote from the influence of those monarchical superstitions which revived with the restoration. If the commonwealth had perpetuated itself to the present day, how would it be thought of and commemorated? As events have turned out, it does not require much ingenuity to show what consequences might be expected to result from the memorable deed. No vocation is easier than that of the prophet after the fact.

But whatever opinion may be formed respecting the moral character of the deed, there can be no hesitation in pronouncing it a purely political one.‡ Indepen

* Carlyle, I. 442-445. Headley's Cromwell, 252-260. + Mackintosh's Hist. of England, VI. 131. Macaulay's Hist. of England, from the Accession of James the Second, I. 128.

Bishop Short, in his "Sketch of the History of the Church of England," 1838, p. 407, affirms that "the real question, throughout, was a political one." For a variety of opinions respecting the state of parties, and the causes which led to the execution of the king, see Hanbury, vol. III. chapter lxxv. Note especially the king's vow, in 1646, to restore the Church of England to more than its former wealth and grandeur, in case he should win back his "kingly rights,"-page 355; and the jesuitical advice of the Bishops of London and Sarum, respecting the manner in which he might promise compliance with the wishes of parliament by oath, without keeping it,-pages 356, 357. These documents show what kind of a man the victorious party had to deal with; to say nothing of the famous letter which Cromwell found in the saddle of the king's messenger. Macaulay's statement about the "impression"

dency had nothing to do with it. Its principles have no preferences, where liberty is secured; and, as history abundantly proves, are capable of flourishing equally well under a monarchy, a republic, or a protectorate. The sentiments of the Independents, at this period, respecting the execution of the king and the organic change of the government, are decisive on this point. If Independency were republicanism, there would have been unanimity. But the fact is the reverse of this. Not only was the kingdom at large divided respecting the propriety of such proceedings, it is also capable of proof that the Independents whether we include in this term the religious Independents only, or those also who advocated their opinions on political grounds-were quite as much divided amongst themselves. While John Goodwin, Milton, Cromwell, Ireton, Colonel Hutchinson, Hugh Peters, and many eminent ministers and members of the Congregational body, were prepared to justify the execution of the king; some congregations in various parts of the kingdom, with their ministers at their

produced "on the public mind," by the captive king, is surely mere painting. Even his own party gave him up at last.-Saunderson's Complete History, 1658, p. 1140; Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, p. 743. Hanbury's view appears to us the correct one : "What plight soever the presbyterians were in, it is clear that 'the sects' were on an equal footing, as regards the awful extremity. It is true, they did not overrule it: neither do we read of any wide, extended concert of the episcopal body, making an effort to avert the catastrophe, on its immediate approach. The clear truth of all is, that the king had made himself generally unpopular, but that the nation was awe-struck at the novelty and greatness, not to say sublimity, of the final result!" In this last sentiment, Carlyle agrees with Hanbury. Carlyle's Cromwell, I. 444.

"Some on the Inde

head, remonstrated against it. The testimony of Charles's principal physician, Dr. George Bates, is express on the latter point. pendent side, also," he writes, "declare against the thing in their sermons from the pulpit, in conferences, monitory letters, petitions, protestations, and public remonstrances." * Besides these, a third class were neutral. They neither remonstrated against the proceedings of parliament, nor pronounced a judgment in their favor. The probability is, that while convinced of the lawfulness of bringing a tyrant to the block, they did not feel themselves in a position to decide on the necessities of the state at that particular crisis. There is always a large number of this class in every party-men who either feel their incompetency to decide on the character of public measures, or who deem it expedient to be silent.

While these facts are sufficient to show that Independency had no direct concern in the death of the king, it cannot be denied that a large number of the Independent party approved of the deed, or at least lent it their sanction by acting in concert with those who brought it about.†

It is difficult to determine the precise views of the

*Elenchus Motuum Nuperorum in Anglia; or, A Short Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Late Troubles in England," &c.-1685; p. 142. See also Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters, Vol. I. p. 85; Orme's Life of Owen, pp. 68, 69; and Orme's Life of Baxter, I. 133-138. Neal, II. 365.

+ Milton writes :-" The Independents, as they are called, were the only men that, from first to last, kept to their point, and knew what use to make of their victory. They refused, and wisely in my opinion, to make him king again, being then an enemy:" &c. First Defence of the People of England, chapter x.

Assembly Independents. But their intimate association with the party seems to involve them in its views.* The same may be said of the illustrious John Owen, at this time one of Fairfax's chaplains. He preached before parliament the day after Charles's death; and although his language was so guarded that it would have been difficult to determine from his sermon whether he approved of it or not, yet the fact of preaching under such circumstances was sufficient to make him a party. In the following April he was again called to preach before parliament, when he delivered his celebrated discourse on the "Shaking and Translating of Heaven and Earth," in justification of the new order of things. On the 7th of June, both Owen and Thomas Goodwin preached in the city of London, on the occasion of the suppression of the levellers. The speaker at the head of the members of parliament, the council of state, the corporation headed by the lord mayor, and Fairfax, Cromwell, and the chief officers of the army, were all present. The sermons were so much to the purpose, that "a committee was appointed, to consider how to prefer Mr. Thomas Goodwin, and Mr. Owen, to be heads of colleges in Oxford, as a reward for asserting the late proceedings of parliament." Hugh Peters,-whose name has been so unrighteously defamed, even by

* Burroughes died November 16th, 1646.

Mr. Orme's attempted and unnecessary apology for Owenthat his superiors were persons whose commands were not to be gainsayed” ”—appears to us quite insufficient. Owen might easily have refused to preach at this time, if he had "disapproved of the death of Charles." Besides, the text he chose for the occasion was quite enough to show his mind.

‡ Hanbury, III. 394. Orme's Life of Owen, p. 86.