It was clearly a revolutionary position which the House had assumed. But
it was assumed because it was impossible to expect that a king who had
ruled as Charles had ruled could take up a new position as the exponent
of the feelings which were represented in the Commons. As long as
Charles lived he could not be otherwise than an object of suspicion; and
yet if he were dethroned there was no one available to fill his place.
There arose therefore two parties in the House, one ready to trust the
king, the other disinclined to put any confidence in him at all. The
division was the sharper because it coincided with a difference in
matters of religion. Scarcely any one wished to see the Laudian
ceremonies upheld. But the members who favoured the king, and who formed
a considerable minority, wished to see a certain liberty of religious
thought, together with a return under a modified Episcopacy to the forms
of worship which prevailed before Laud had taken the church in hand. The
other side, which had the majority by a few votes, wished to see the
Puritan creed prevail in all its strictness, and were favourable to the
establishment of the Presbyterian discipline. The king by his unwise
action threw power into the hands of his opponents. He listened with
tolerable calmness to their Grand Remonstrance, but his attempt to seize
the five members whom he accused of high treason made a good
understanding impossible. The Scottish army had been paid off some
months before, and civil war was the only means of deciding the quarrel.
The civil war.
Presbyterians and Independents.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account