Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

many; but not one of them suggested a vision of a man who had been crucified as an impostor for claiming to be the Messiah risen from the dead, and of the erection of a new Messianic kingdom on its basis. Such as they had would have all tended in the contrary direction. So, likewise, whatever fixed ideas' they might have possessed, if they produced visions at all, they would have been of the very opposite character to those which this theory presupposes, for fixed ideas are necessarily in the highest degree conservative of the past. As to 'expectancy,' nothing can be more certain than that of a resurrection they had none; for, even if, as 'S. R.' endeavours to prove, a belief in a resurrection had become a popular tenet (which I greatly doubt), there was nothing in the past history of the Jewish people which would suggest the expectation that God would vindicate the cause of a murdered prophet by raising him from the dead. The only ground on which a strong expectancy of a resurrection could have possessed the disciples would have been the fact that our Lord not only predicted His own death, but His resurrection also. This our Gospels tell us that He did in terms most express and definite; but as this would involve the presence in Him of a superhuman foresight, unbelievers decline to accept their statements on this point as historical. The utmost, therefore, that can be suggested is, that He may have thrown out some vague hopes that God would vindicate His cause after the termination of His earthly life, and that He should live again in it. But vague hopes of this kind could not have produced such a state of expectancy in minds utterly depressed by the events of the Crucifixion, as to cause them to see visions of Him risen from the dead, to mistake them for realities, and on the strength of these delusions to engage in the work of reconstructing the Church on the new basis of a crucified Messiah. It follows, therefore, that neither these nor any other principles, laid down by Dr. Carpenter, afford us the smallest aid in accounting for the unquestionable historic facts which form the foundation on which the Christian Church was erected, and equally impotent are they to explain the subsequent facts of history. If the theory of visions and that which has been invented to supplement it, viz. that the followers of Jesus, in the depth of their credulity, mistook His gradual recovery from the wounds which were inflicted in His crucifixion for a resurrection (how He managed to escape alive out of the hands of His enemies we are not informed, but we must assume that He did so, or the theory collapses), are the true account of the actual facts, then we

must assume a number of events to have happened which are as unaccountable as the result of those forces which energise in the moral and spiritual worlds, as the Resurrection itself is unaccountable as the result of those which energise in the material world. All that we get is the substitution of one class of miracles for another, with this additional disadvantage, that the substituted ones, if real, prove that a power which has exerted a mightier influence on mankind for good than the labours of the wisest and the best, rests on zero for its foundation, or, to speak more truly, on the vices of credulity, superstition, and fanaticism, in their most extreme form.

The state, therefore, of the case stands thus. The Christian Church has always given an account of its origin, which, if true, forms an explanation of it, and of the events of history, which fully satisfies our reason, i.e., the cause assigned is adequate to the effect. Unbelief, on the other hand, propounds a set of causes which break down, not only when the tests of a sound philosophy are applied to them, but even those of common sense. The alternative is before us. The Resurrection is either a fact or a fiction. If the latter, the theories above referred to are the only solutions which unbelief has to propound of the historic facts. What, then, is the course which reason demands? Only one answer can fairly be given to accept the adequate cause as the true one, and to reject the inadequate ones as mere creations of the imagination of those who propound them.

ART. III.—THE ICON BASILIKÈ.

I. Tracts on the Icon Basilikè.

By the REV. C. H. R.

WORDSWORTH, D.D., Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. (London, 1824, &c.).

2. The Icon Basilikè. 1648 edition.

[ocr errors]

3. A True Account of the Icon Basilikè: By DR. WALKER. State Tracts, William III.

IT was stated in the article upon the Personal Government of Charles I. which recently appeared in this Review, that the 'enduring importance of this reign' still affords sufficient excuse for the renewed investigation of any portion of it, even though the subject has been already treated by the greatest writers of English history.

In accordance with this opinion, we now venture to call attention to one of the most singular features of that eventful period, that, namely, of the influence of the Icon Basilikè.

The question as to the authorship of the Icon Basilikè is one more closely personal in its relation to the King than even the nine years of his government to which we have alluded, and yet it exercised a wide and general influence over the kingdom at large.

This influence, which made itself felt in the country and prevailed, even at the worst moment of her civil tumult, has ever since occupied more or less the attention of her historians. They have written upon it, to borrow once more the words of Mr. Gardner's reviewer, either as Whigs or Tories, according to their strong bias for or against the King. And now at the present moment, if the question were once more raised, 'Who wrote the Icon Basilikè?' we should find opinions divided into distinct sections. The Royalists would claim the right of authorship for the King on every ground. In whatever light they view the book, whether as a contemporary historical record, a rare literary treasure, or an exact representation of the King's mind and character, it would be scarcely possible to over-estimate the value of such an autobiography to their cause.

On each and all of these grounds the anti-Royalists endeavour to destroy the royal claim to the work; yet, if we trace the controversy from its very beginning, we shall find that upon this point the King's antagonists have materially shifted their position in the argument since the day of the publication of the first Icon Basilikè. All agree in fixing that date as close as possible to that of the King's murder. A copy of the first edition is still extant in the British Museum, among the collection which goes by the name of the 'King's Pamphlets,' and it contains an MS. memorandum on the title-page, indicating the day of publication, or rather the day when the book first came into the collector's hands, bearing the date February 9 (1648). But we have the history of an earlier copy than this-a copy which was published on January 31, 1648, the day after the King's murder, and which was bought for ten shillings by Mr. John Wilson, barrister-atlaw, author of the Vindication of Icon Basilikè against Milton.1 'This further I speak of my own knowledge,' says the author: 'the very next morning after that horrible act I saw one of them and read part of it under the title of Icon Basilikè, which it now bears.'

1 Vindicia Carolina, 1692, p. 10.

Cromwell and his Council of State found that their interest required that the work should as speedily as possible be brought into disrepute. They fixed upon Milton to perform this office for them. The King's book was entitled the Royal Image, so Milton called his reply the Image-Breaker. It was first printed in 1649, within about eight months of the death of the King, and again in the following year. Every admirer of Milton must regret that he was the author of that work ; the errors of argument, the imperfect knowledge which he displays of his subject, the supreme bad taste of insulting the fallen and departed King, have not even the excuse that they are the ill-considered outburst of spontaneous feeling. Milton tells us he took it upon him as 'a work assigned, rather than by him chosen or affected;' and, in servile obedience to Cromwell, he executes his unworthy task. It was not likely that he would neglect the opportunity of casting a doubt upon the authorship of the book. But here he signally fails; the one paragraph which suggests the idea of an author other than the King is contradicted not only by the whole line of argument, which depends upon the book being written by the royal hand, but by such expressions as 'the King's own words,' 'own testimony,' 'own rule,' 'his aphorism,' which are freely used in this treatise.

Milton's argument was a failure, although it was supported by a formal pamphlet adopting his insinuation and fastening the authorship of the book upon either Dr. Hammond or Dr. Harris. The only result of this pamphlet was to elicit such a conclusive answer, backed by proofs, from the Royalist side,' that the assertions with regard to these two chaplains of the Household were abandoned, never to be revived. One of the Royalist writers at this the earliest period of the controversy argues thus:

'It is impossible but that the King was admirably good if we read him in that book; therefore there is a necessity that the book should be none of his. What is the use of argument when there is a necessity? Or the author might have informed himself of divers who have seen the original copy, manuscribed by the King himself. He might have seen it himself for the asking. He might have heard thousands who would have taken their oaths upon it, thousands who would have justified it with their lives. . . . . The King's style was as easy to be known from other styles as was his face from other faces, it being impossible that either face or style should counterfeit the majesty of either. But necessity must be obeyed.'

We have already seen that Cromwell and his Council 1 The Princely Pelican, 1649.

were fully aware of this 'necessity.' Argument, the means they had first employed to turn the stream of popular opinion into another channel, having failed, they now resorted to the more violent measures of threats, bribes, and imprisonment. There was a great deal of' search after the printing presses. Richard Royston, the King's printer, was summoned by Bradshaw to Whitehall,

[ocr errors]

'where they examined him about the printing of the said book, promising him great rewards if he would deny that, tho' printed, it was the King's, and threatening him with great severity if he owned it to bee the said King's, but he constantly affirmed that he printed it by his Majestie's special order about 14. . . . after the Martyrdome of his glorious Majestie; so that neither their promises of reward nor their threatening of punishment prevailed with him; wherefore they immediately kept him a prisoner under a messenger's hand about a fortnight.'

6

After that time they sent for William Levett, page to the late King, and writer of the letter just quoted, and upon examination of mee,' the narrative continues, 'Bradshaw bee convinced that the saide booke was his Majestie's own, replyed, "Who could think that so wicked a man could writ so good a booke?" '1

This was the opinion of the president of the regicide tribunal; and, to make the evidence on that side complete, we have on record Cromwell's own statement concerning the book. 'Madam,' he said to Lady Winwood, taking up the Icon Basilike, which lay on her table, 'I see you have Charles Stuart's book.' She replied, 'My Lord, do you believe the late King to be the author of it?' To which he answered, 'Yes, most certainly, for he was the greatest hypocrite in the world.' 2

We find the corroboration of this opinion in the Orders in Council issued at this time :

[ocr errors]

'1651, May 20.—Ordered―That Mr. Dury do proceed in the translating of Mr. Milton's Book, written in answer to the late King's Book, and that it be left to Mr. Frost to give him such reward for his pains as he shall think fit.'

'1652, November 15.-Ordered-That it be referred to Mr. Thurloe to consider of a fit reward to be given to Mr. Dury for his pains in

1 This autograph letter has been placed in the hands of the writer of this essay. The MS. is endorsed, Mr. Richard Royston's relation to mee for ye printing K. C. his book, Nov. 18, 1684,' and is now in the possession of Col. Richard Levett, of Milford Hall, Stafford, a lineal descendant of the King's page.

2 Wagstaffe's Vindication of the Royal Martyr, p. 101.

« ПретходнаНастави »