rian? Or, where is the Dissenter in England who is not ready to swear to it with this explication? But his lordship is pleased to reason upon this head; and in order to support that absolute supremacy which was the groundwork of the Reformation, affirms, that "all Christian kings and emperors have the same power of reforming religion, and are under the same obligations as the Jewish kings were in cases of the like nature," without producing the least evidence or proof; whereas his lordship knows that the government of the Jews was a theocracy; that God himself was their king, and the laws of that nation strictly and properly the laws of God, who is Lord of conscience, and may annex what sanctions he pleases. Their judges and kings were chosen and appointed by God, not to make a new codex or book of laws either for Church or State, but to keep the people to the strict observation of those laws and statutes that he himself had given them by the hand of Moses. His lordship is pleased to ask, "If any high pretender to spiritual liberty and the rights of conscience should inquire what authority the respective Jewish and Christian powers had to interpose in matters that regarded the rights of conscience, since, in fact, their assumed supremacy was a usurpation of those natural rights?" I answer, that with regard to the Jews, it was no usurpation, for the reasons before mentioned; and when his lordship shall prove a transfer of the same power to all Christian princes, the controversy will be brought to a short issue. "But will it not be replied," says the bishop, "that those kings and emperors were intrusted by God with the care of the ecclesiastical as well as civil constitution ?" If by the care of the constitution he meant no more than the preserving their subjects in the enjoy ment of their inalienable rights, nobody denies it; but if, under this pretence, they assume a sovereign and arbitrary power of modelling the ecclesiastical constitution according to their pleasure, and of enforcing their subjects' obedience by canons and penal laws, I should doubt whether they are obliged to comply, even in things not absolutely sinful in themselves, because it may derogate from the kingly office of Christ, who is sole king and lawgiver in his own kingdom, and has not delegated this branch of his authority to any vicar-general upon earth. But I readily agree with his lordship, that if any high pretender to the rights of conscience should have asked the first Christian emperors by what authority they took on themselves the alteration or change of religion, they would have thought the question unreasonable, and worthy of censure; they would have affirmed their own sovereignty, and have taught the bold inquirers as Gideon did the men of Succoth, with briers and thorns of the wilderness. The bishop goes on: "Let us now transfer this power of Jewish kings and Christian emperors to our own kings, and the case will admit of an easy decision."§ If, indeed, an absolute supremacy in matters of religion be the natural and inalienable right of every Christian king and emperor, the dispute is at an end; but if it depend upon a transfer, we must beg pardon if we desire his lordship to produce his commission for transferring the same powers that Almighty God gave the Jewish kings of his own appointment to the first Christian emperors, who were neither chosen by God, nor the people, nor the Senate of Rome, but usurped the supreme authority by the assistance of the military arm, and were some of them the greatest tyrants and scourges of mankind. His lordship adds, "Have not the English kings since the Reformation actually been invested with the same supremacy as the Jewish kings and Christian emperors were?" I answer, such a supremacy is, in my judgment, inconsistent with our present Constitution and the laws in being. The supremacy claimed by King Henry VIII. and his successors, at the Reformation, was found by experience too excessive, and therefore abridged in the reigns of King Charles I. and King William III. No one doubts but that the kings of England are obliged to protect religion and defend the establishment as long as the Legislature think fit to continue it; but as they may not suspend or change it by their sovereign pleasure, so neither may they publish edicts of their own to enforce it, as was the case of the first Christian reader will excuse this digression, as necessary to support a principal fact of my history. emperors. The I am sufficiently aware of the delicacy of the affairs treated of in this volume, and of the tenderness of the ground I go over; and though I have been very careful of my temper and language, and have endeavoured to look into the mysterious conduct of the several parties with all the indifference of a spectator, I find it very difficult to form an exact judgment of the most important events, or to speak freely without offence; therefore, if any passionate or angry writer should appear against this, or any of the former volumes, I humbly request the reader to pay no regard to personal reflections, or to any insinuations of any ill designs against the established religion or the public peace, which are entirely groundless. I am as far from vindicating the spirit and conduct of the warmer Puritans as of the governing prelates of those times; there was hard measure on both sides, though, if we separate politics from principles of pure religion, the balance will be very much in favour of the Puritans. În historical debates nothing is to be received upon trust, but facts are to be examined, and a judgment formed upon the authority by which those facts are supported; by this method we shall arrive at truth; and if it shall appear that in the course of this long history there are any considerable mistakes, the world may be assured I will take the first opportunity to retract or amend them, having no private or party views, no prospect of preferment or other reward for my labours than the satisfaction of doing some service to truth, and to the religious and civil liberties of mankind; and yet, after all, I must bespeak the indulgence and candour of my readers, which those who are sensible of the labour and toil of collecting so many materials, and ranging them in their proper order, will readily allow to one who sincerely wishes the prosperity and welfare of all good men, and that the violence and outrage of these unhappy times, which brought such confusion and misery both on king and people, may never be imitated by the present or any future age. London, Nov. 4, 1735. DANIEL NEAL. PART II. CHAPTER I. FROM THE BATTLE OF EDGEHILL TO THE CALLING the two houses, who immediately gave orders to forbear all acts of hostility, and sent a messenger to the king to desire the like forbearance on his part; but the committee had no THE king having recruited his army at Ox-sooner left Colnbrook than his majesty, taking ford, after the battle of Edgehill, by the assist- the advantage of a thick mist, advanced to ance of the University, who now gave his maj- Brentford, about seven miles from London,* esty all their money, as they had before done which he attacked with his whole army, Notheir plate, resolved to pursue his march to vember 13, and after a fierce and bloody renLondon, in order to break up the Parliament counter with the Parliament garrison, wherein and surprise the city; while the Earl of Essex, considerable numbers were driven into the imagining the campaign was ended, lay quiet Thames and slain, he got possession of the about Warwick, till, being informed of the king's town, and took a great many prisoners. The designs, he posted to London, and ordered his consternation of the citizens on this occasion forces to follow with all expedition. The earl was inexpressible, imagining the king would arrived November 7, 1642, and was honourably be the next morning at their gates; upon which received by both houses of Parliament, who the lord-mayor ordered the trained-bands impresented him with a gratuity of £5000, and, to mediately to join the Earl of Essex's forces, strengthen his army, passed an ordinance that which were just arrived at Turnham Green, such apprentices as would list in their service under the command of Major-general Skippon,. should be entitled to a freedom of the city at and there being no farther thoughts of peace, the expiration of their apprenticeship, equally every one spirited up his neighbour, and all rewith those who continued with their masters. solved, as one man, to live and die together. In the beginning of November, the king took Major Skippon went from regiment to regiment, possession of Reading without the least resist- and encouraged his troops with such short, solance, the Parliament garrison having abandon-dierlike speeches as these: "Come, my boys! ed it, which alarmed both houses, and made my brave boys! I will run the same hazards with them send an express to desire a safe-conduct you; remember, the cause is for God and the for a committee of Lords and Commons to at-defence of yourselves, your wives, and children. tend his majesty with a petition for peace ;* Come, my honest, brave boys! let us pray heartthe committee waited on his majesty at Coln-ily, and fight heartily, and God will bless us.' brook, fifteen miles from London, and, having received a favourable answer,† reported it to * Rushworth, vol. i., p. 58. When they were drawn up, they made a body of about twenty-four thousand men eager for battle; but their orders were only to be on the defensive, and prevent the king's breaking + "He seemed to receive the petition with great through to the city. The two armies having willingness, and called God to witness, with many faced each other all day, his majesty retreated protestations, that he was tenderly compassionate of in the night to Kingston, and from thence to his bleeding people, and more desirous of nothing Reading, where having left a small garrison, he than a speedy peace."-May's Parliamentary History, b. iii., p. 33. The immediate subsequent conduct of returned to Oxford about the beginning of Dethe king was certainly not consistent with such pro- cember with his Brentford prisoners, the chief fessions; yet Dr. Grey is displeased with Mr. Neal of whom were condemned to die,t and had for insinuating that it was a breach of promise, and accuses him of not giving the fairest account of this would immediately have withdrawn their garrison action, which, he says, the king sufficiently justified. from Windsor, and delivered that castle to his majBut when the doctor passed this censure, it seems esty for his accommodation, to have carried on the that he had not looked forward to the next para- treaty he had proposed.-History, vol. ii., p. 73. The graph, where the motives of the king's behaviour notives on which the king acted in the action at are stated. The committee deputed by the Parlia- Brentford, which Mr. Neal has compressed into one ment to Colnbrook consisted of the Earls of Nor- paragraph, Dr. Grey, by large quotations on different thumberland and Pembroke, Lord Wainman, Mr. authorities, has extended through four pages, which Pierpont, Sir John Ipsley, and Sir John Evelyn affords a parade of confuting Mr. Neal.-ED. when the king fefused to admit the last gentleman, * Whitelocke, p. 62. because he had named him a traitor the day before, the Parliament, though extremely displeased with the exception, so as to vote it a breach of privilege, yet, from their ardent desire of accommodation, permitted the petition to be presented without Sir John Evelyn.-May, b. iii., p. 32. This yielding conduct leaves the king more inexcusable, as it serves to show the sincerity of the Parliament in their overtures; and Lord Clarendon says that it was believed by many, that had the king retired to Reading, and waited there for the answer of Parliament, they VOL. I.-K K K + Rushworth, vol. v., p. 93. The persons named by Rushworth, whom Mr. Neal quotes, were Clifton Catesby, John Lilburne, and Robet Vivers. Dr. Grey says that "it does not appear that these three were taken prisoners at Brentford." He should have added, from this place in Rushworth, to which the reference is here made; for in p. 83 Rushworth informs his readers, with respect to Lilburne in particular, that he owned that he was at Brentford; and by the others being included in the same sentence, it is probable that they been executed for high treason, if the two, letter to Duke Hamilton, dated December 2, houses had not threatened to make reprisals.* 1642, he says, "he had set up his rest upon the The Parliament, to prevent a like surprise of justice of his cause, being resolved that no exthe city for the future, empowered the lord- tremity or misfortune should make him yield ; mayor to cause lines of circumvallation to be for," says his majesty, "I will be either a glodrawn around it, and all the avenues fortified. rious king or a patient martyr; and as yet not It was not without reason that the two being the first, nor at this present apprehending houses complained of the king's extraordinary the other, I think it no unfit time to express this conduct on this occasion, which was owing to my resolution to you." The justice of the the violent counsels of Prince Rupert and Lord cause upon which his majesty had set up his Digby, animated by some of his majesty's rest was his declaration and promise to govern friends in the city, who imagined that if the for the future according to the laws of the land; royal army appeared in the neighbourhood of but the point was to know whether this might London, the Parliament would accept of his be relied upon. The two houses admitted the majesty's pardon and break up, or else the con- laws of the land to be the rule of government,† fusions would be so great that he might enter and that the executive power in time of peace and carry all before him; but the project hav- was with the king ;‡ but his majesty had so ofting failed, his majesty endeavoured to excuse it en dispensed with the laws by the advice of a in the best manner he could: he alleged that, corrupt ministry, after repeated assurances to there being no cessation of arms agreed upon, the contrary thereof, that they durst not conhe might justly take all advantages against his fide in his royal word, and insisted upon some enemies. He insisted, farther, upon his fears additional security for themselves and for the of being hemmed in by the Parliament's forces | Constitution. On the other hand, his majesty about Colnbrook, to prevent which, it seems, averred the Constitution was in no danger from he marched seven miles nearer the city. Lord him, but from themselves, who were acting evClarendon says,† Prince Rupert having ad-ery day in defiance of it. To which it was anvanced to Hounslow without order, his majes-swered, that it was impossible the laws should ty, at the desire of the prince, marched forward to disengage him from the danger of the forces quartered in that neighbourhood; which is so very improbable, that, in the opinion of Mr. Rapin, it is needless to refute it. Upon the whole, it is extremely probable the king came from Oxford with a design of surprising the city of London before the Earl of Essex's army could arrive; but, having missed his aim, he framed the best pretences to persuade the people that his marching to Brentford was only in his own defence. Though his majesty took all occasions to make offers of peace to his Parliament, in hopes the nation would compel them to an agreement, by leaving him in possession of all his prerogatives, it is sufficiently evident he had no intentions to yield anything to obtain it; for in his have their due course in time of war as in the height of peace, because this must effectually tie up their hands. Neither party by law could raise money upon the subject without each other's consent; the king could not do it without consent of Parliament, nor the Parliament without the royal assent, and yet both had practised it since the opening of the war. To have recourse, therefore, to the laws of a well-settled government in times of general confusion, was weak and impracticable. Besides, his majesty refused to give up any of his late ministers to Let them who are acquainted with the history of his firmness? Did Charles I. act with this consistency? reign answer the question. Even Lord Clarendon owns his belief that, in matters of great moment, an opinion that the violence and force used in procuring bills rendered them absolutely void, influenced the king to confirm them.-History, vol. i., p. 430. What confidence could be placed in the professions and sincerity of a man who could be displeased with the * On the authority of Lord Clarendon and Mr. Earl of Northumberland because he would not perEchard, Dr. Grey charges the chaplains of the Par-jure himself for Lord-lieutenant Strafford?-Sydney's liament army, Dr. Downing and Mr. Marshal, with publicly avowing "that the soldiers lately taken at Brentford, and discharged by the king upon their oaths that they would never again bear arms against him, were not obliged by that oath," and with absolving them from it. The doctor is also displeased with Mr. Oldmixon for treating this account as a falsehood, but he suppresses the grounds of Mr. Oldmixon's censure of it, which are these: in the first place, that there was no occasion to usc these arts, when the prisoners amounted to but one hundred and fifty men, which could not be wanted when the city of London was pouring out recruits; and, then, priestly absolution was not the practice, nor the power of it the claim, of Puritan divines.-Rushworth, vol. v., p. 59. Oldmixon's History of the Stuarts, p. 214.-ED. + History, p. 74. were involved in the same charge of acting against the king at Brentford. State Papers, quoted by Dr. Harris, Life of Charles I., * Duke of Hainilton's Memoirs, b. iv., p. 203. # " Our laws have nowhere, that I know of, distinguished," says Dr. Grey, "between times of peace or war, with regard to the king's executive power." This is true; but it was the infelicity of the times of which Mr. Neal writes, that there arose new questions out of the present emergency for which the standing laws had made no provision, and difficulties to which they did not apply.-ED. "Mr. Neal," says Dr. Grey, "has not produced one single proof in support of this assertion, and I Rapin, vol. ii., p. 465, folio edition. challenge him to instance in particulars." This may Without controverting Mr. Neal's authority, Dr. appear a bold challenge from a writer who professed Grey calls this a bold assertion, and appeals to va- to be conversant in the history of those times. But rious messages for an accommodation which the as the doctor has thrown it out, we will produce an king sent to the Parliament. But of what avail to instance of the king's violation of his word. prove a yielding and accommodating temper are gave his assent to the Petition of Right, a kind of speeches without actions? or softening overtures, second Magna Charta, which he immediately violaunless they be followed up by mild and pacific meas- ted, and continued to do for twelve years together. ures, adopted with sincerity, and adhered to with-Essay towards a True Idea, &c., p. 94.-ED. He |