King Charles the Martyr January 30th

(Courtesy of Project Canterbury)

KING CHARLS
HIS
SPEECH

Made upon the
SCAFFOLD
At Whitehall-Gate,

Immediately before his Execution,
On Tuesday the 30 of Ian. 1648

VVith a Relation of the maner of
his going to Execution

Published by Special Authority.

London:
Printed by Peter Cole, at the sign of the
Printing-Press in Cornhil, near the
Royal Exchange. 1649.

About ten in the Morning the King was brought from St. James's, walking on foot through the Park, with a Regiment of Foot, part before and part behind him, with Colours flying, Drums beating, his private Guard of Partizans with some of his Gentlemen before and some behind bareheaded, D. J U X O N next behind him and Col. Thomlinson (who had the charge of him) talking with the King bareheaded from the Park, up the stairs into the Gallery, and so into the Cabinet-Chamber where he used to lie, where he continued at his Devotion, refusing to dine, (having before taken the Sacrament) only about an hour before he came forth, he drank a glass of Claret wine, and eat a piece of bread about twelve at noon.

(It is observed the King desired to have the use of the cabinet and the little room next it where there was a trap door.)

From thence he was accompanied by Dr. Juxon, Col. Thomlinson and other officers formerly appointed to attend him and the private guard of partizans, with musketeers on each side, through the Banqueting house adjoining to which the scaffold was erected between Whitehall Gate and the Gate leading into the gallery from St. James's: The Scaffold was hung round with black and the floor covered with black and the Ax and Block laid in the middle of the Scaffold. There were divers companies of Foot, and Troops of Horse placed on the one side of the Scaffold towards Kings-Street and on the other side towards Charing Cross, and the multitudes of people that came to be Spectators, very great.

The King being come upon the Scaffold, look'd very earnestly upon the Block and ask'd Col. Hacker if there were no higher; and then spake thus (directing his speech chiefly to Col: Thomlinson).

King. I shall be very little heard of anybody here, I shall therefore speak a word unto you here. Indeed I could hold my peace very well, if I did not think that holding my peace would make some men think that I did submit to the guilt as well as to the punishment. But I think it is my duty to God first and to my country for to clear myself both as an honest man and a good King, and a good Christian. I shall begin first with my innocence. In troth I think it not very needful for me to insist long upon this, for all the world knows that I never did begin a War with the two Houses of Parliament. And I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges. They began upon me, it is the Militia they began upon, they confest that the Militia was mine, but they thought it fit for to have it from me. And, to be short, if any body will look to the dates of Commissions, of their commissions and mine, and likewise to the Declarations, will see clearly that they began these unhappy troubles, not I. So that as the guilt of these enormous crimes that are laid against me I hope in God that God will clear me of it, I will not, I am in charity. God forbid that I should lay it upon the two Houses of Parliament; there is no necessity of either, I hope that they are free of this guilt; for I do believe that ill instruments between them and me has been the chief cause of all this bloodshed; so that by way of speaking, as I finde my self clear of this, I hope (and pray God) that they may too; yet for all this, God forbid that I should be so ill a Christian as not to say that Gods Judgments are just upon me. Many times he does pay Justice by an unjust Sentence, that is ordinary; I will onely say this, That an unjust [6/7] Sentence (Strafford) that I suffered for to take effect, is punished now by an unjust Sentence upon me; that is, so far as I have said, to shew you that I am an innocent man.

Now for to shew you that I am a good Christian; I hope there is (pointing to D. Juxon) a good man that will bear me witness that I have forgiven all the world, and even those in particular that have been the chief causes of my death. Who they are, God knows, I do not desire to know, God forgive them. But this is not all, my charity must go further. I wish that they may repent, for indeed they have committed a great sin in that particular. I pray God, with St. Stephen, that this be not laid to their charge. Nay, not only so, but that they may take the right way to the peace of the kingdom, for my charity commands me not only to forgive particular men, but my charity commands me to endeavour to the last gasp the Peace of the Kingdom. So, Sirs, I do wish with all my soul, and I do hope there is some here (turning to some gentlemen that wrote) that will carry it further, that they may endeavour the peace of the Kingdom. Now, (Sirs) I must show you both how you are out of the way and will put you in a way; first, you are out of the way, for certainly all the way you have ever had yet, as I could find by anything, is by way of conquest. Certainly this is an ill way, for Conquest, (Sir) in my opinion, is never just, except that there be a good just Cause, either for matter of wrong or just Title, and then if you go beyond it, the first quarrel that you have to it, that makes it unjust at the end that was just at the first: But if it be only matter of Conquest, there is a great Robbery; as a Pirat said to Alexander, that He was the great Robber, he was but a petty Robber: and so, Sir, I do think the way that you are in, is much out of the way. Now Sir, for to put you in the way, believe it you will never do right, nor God will never prosper you, until you give God his due, the King his due (that is, my Successors) and the People their due; I am as much for them as any of you: You must give God his due by regulating rightly His Church (according to the Scripture) which is now out of order. For to set you in a way particularly now I cannot, but onely this. A national synod freely called, freely debating among themselves, must settle this, when that every opinion is freely and clearly heard.

For the King, indeed I will not, (then turning to a Gentlemen that touched the Ax, said, Hurt not the Ax, that may hurt me) [meaning if he did blunt the edg] For the King:) The Laws of the Land will clearly instruct you for that; therefore, because it concerns My Own particular, I onely give you a touch of it.

For the people. And truly I desire their Liberty and Freedom as much as any Body whomsoever. But I must tell you, That their Liberty and Freedom, consists in having of Government; those Laws, by which their Life and their gGods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government (Sir) that [9/10] is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a soveraign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves.

Sirs, It was for this that now I Am come here. If I would have given way to an Arbitrary way, for to have all Laws changed according to the power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here; and therefore, I tell you, (and I pray God it be not laid to your charge) That I Am the Martyr of the People.

Introth, Sirs, I shall not hold you much longer, for I will only say thus to you. That in truth I could have desired some little time longer, because I would have put then that I have said in a little more order, and a little better digested than I have done. And, therefore, I hope that you will excuse Me. [10/11]

I have delivered my Conscience. I pray God, that you do take those courses that are best for the good of the Kingdom and your own Salvations.

Dr. Juxon.

Will Your Majesty (though it may be very well known Your Majesties Affections to Religion, yet it may be expected, that You should) say somewhat for the Worlds satisfaction.

King,

I thank you very heartily (my Lord) for that, I had almost forgotten it. Introth, Sirs, My Conscience in Religion, I think, is very well knowne to all the World; and, therefore, I declare before you all that I die a Christian, according to the profession of the Church of ENGLAND, as I found it left me by my father. And this honest man [pointing to Dr. Juxon] I think will witness it. Then turning to the Officers said, Sirs, excuse me for this same. I have a good Cause, and I have a gracious God; I will say no more. Then turning to Colonel Hacker, he said, Take care that they do not put Me to pain, and Sir this, and it please you: But then a Gentleman coming near the Ax, the King said, Take heed of the Ax. Pray take heed of the Ax.

Then the King, speaking to the Executioner said, I shall say but very short Prayers, and when I thrust out my hands„„. Then the King called to Dr. Juxon for His Night-Cap, and having put it on said to the Executioner, Does My Hair trouble you? Who desired Him to put it all under His Cap, which the King did accordingly, by the help of the Executioner and the Bishop: then the King turning to Dr. Juxon said, I have a good Cause, and a gracious GOD on my side.

Doctor Juxon.

There is but one Stage more. This Stage is turbulent and troublesome; it is a short one: But You may consider it will soon carry You a very great way; it will carry You from Earth to Heaven; and there you shall finde a great deal of Cordial, Joy, and Comfort.

King

I go from a corruptible, to an incorruptible Crown; where no disturbance can be, no disturbance in the World.

Doctor Juxon.

You are exchanged from a Temporal to an eternal Crown; a good exchange.

The King then said to the Executioner, is My Hair well: Then the King took off His Cloak and His George, giving His George to Dr. Juxon, saying, Remember„. (It is thought for to give it to the Prince.) Then the King put off His Dublet and being in His Wastecoat, put His Cloak on again; then looking upon the block, said to the Executioner, You must set it fast.

Executioner. It is fast Sir.

King. It might have been a little higher.

Executioner. It can be no higher Sir.

King. When I put out my hands this way (Stretching them out) then„

After having said two or three words (as he stood) to Himself with hands and eyes lift up. Immediately stooping down, laid His Neck on the Block: And then the Executioner again putting his Hair under his Cap, the King said, Stay for the signe. (Thinking he had been going to strike)

Executioner. Yes, I will, and it please Your Majesty.

And after a very little pawse, the King stretching forth his hands, The Executioner at one blow, severed his head from his Body.

That when the Kings head was cut off, the Executioner held it up, and shewed it to the Spectators.

And his Body was put in a Coffin, covered with black Velvet, for that purpose.

The Kings body now lies in His Lodging Chamber at Whitehall.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

The Henry you say

My mother-in-law, a Roman Catholic, was at it again. Just before Christmas, I was informed that the Church of England was started by Henry VIII because he wanted a divorce, and that the reason that the Episcopal Church has its homosexual problem is all due to married clergy. Thank God for monogamy, because one mother-in-law is quite enough. The saddest man in the Bible had to have been King Solomon with about a thousand of them to deal with. It should have been enough to put a king off of sex, since each bride probably had a mother. But, enough about my mother-in-law; we have enough Anglicans to worry about who believe this same stuff.

The second point is easy to answer, since the Orthodox have had married clergy for two thousand years, and their married clergy can beat up Rome's celibate clergy any day of the week (they might just prove this at the Church of the Nativity next Boxing Day). Try to find just one child molester or Vickie Gene imitator among those bearded fathers of the EOC. They did find one-once- and they threw him overboard immediately; they even burned his vestments as defiled. My mother-in-law should not be expected to know that Rome's all celibate clergy rule, not married clergy, is the experiment (and a failed experiment it is too). But, Anglicans should know it. No, the Henry thing is what takes more time to answer.

The ancient Celtic British Christians and the Anglo-Saxon Christians unified into one Ecclesia Anglicana (Church of England) at the Council of Hertford in 673 AD. Many centuries later Henry VIII did his thing, and it died shortly after his son did. Then Queen Mary (after whom a mixed drink is named) lit up England by burning Protestants at the stake, executing so many people in her brief reign that it took her sister, Queen Elisabeth, fifty years just to catch up on the executions, showing that sibling rivalry takes patience and perseverance. It is this second sister that must take center stage.

My mother-in-law is a hopeless case when it comes to setting the record straight, because her warped version of history was taught to her as if it was religious dogma (which I suspect it was). Bloody Mary has been removed from the picture Orwell style, the same way Bobby Kennedy never shows up in the films or photographs from his time as Joe McCarthy's right hand man. But, for Anglicans themselves, it is time to set the record straight once and for all.

The king of Spain saw England as a blossoming rival empire, and so he gave in to his rage about the fate of Queen Catherine of Aragon, the little Spanish lady who got ditched by King Henry for the sexy Anne Boleyn with her green sleeves and six fingers on each hand (Henry must have been turned on by strange things- twelve fingers in all- wow!). Using the unhappy treatment of Catherine as an excuse, or else as a reason many years after the fact, the unhappy Hapsborg brought all his pressure to bear on the pope, insisting that the Church stand up to the English for letting the daughter of six fingered Annie reign after Mary died. The pope issued a decree that the Faithful in England were to rise up, start a civil war, and murder their monarch. It was their Christian duty, damn it, to weaken their own kingdom so that the king of Spain could sail over and conquer them in the chaos. As a result, when the people of England rebelled against this, their Christian duty to take up the sword against friends and neighbors, and to destroy themselves in the process, that the pope excommunicated the Church of England. For a whole generation it was treason to be loyal to the pope- it really was treason too. Think about it.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, dogs and cats, Jews and Greeks, is how Anglicanism was born.

Now, if you need a little more to think about, just remember that God sunk the Armada, and that shows whose side HE was on.

Put that in your thurible and smoke it.

400 Years of Anglicanism in America

Brian McKee, well known in these parts as Ohio Anglican, sent the following as a comment to another post. Because it is an issue in itself, I felt that I ought to post it separately. As Dr Toon so often says, consider it a discussion starter:

April 29, 2007, is the 400th anniversary of Anglicanism in America -- the celebration of the first Eucharist at Jamestown, Virginia.

I have learned that a group of Pentecostals/Charismatics are planning some sort of service on the beach to mark as they call it the 400th anniversary of "Christianity" in America.

What a shame that no Anglican celebration is planned. It would be so wonderful to have a Eucharist in the Jamestown Church to celebrate that anniversary. The ACC Diocese of Mid-Atlantic States had one there last year as part of their Synod.

I wish that through this blog we could get a group of continuing Anglicans together to celebrate this anniversary. As continuing Anglicans, we are the only ones that can represent true, traditional Anglicanism as it was 400 years ago at Jamestown.

I shudder to think that such an important milestone will be marked by Pentecostals/Charismatics hopping up and down, dancing around in circles and talking in tongues. The original settlers and priest from Jamestown would be humiliated that such an important religious milestone in Anglicanism will be a disgraceful event similar to a circus sideshow on the beach. We owe them a dignified commermorative Eucharist in the Jamestown Church.

Wouldn't it be lovely to get several continuing jurisdictions to work together on this?

Lies and Slander

A few days ago, a comment was posted by a reader who accused me of “lies and slander” because of my completely accurate remarks about deceptive statements by Elaine Pagels. Her works belong to a new category of scholarship that does not have at its heart a desire to learn facts, to research all of the relevant available documents, and try to understand real history. It belongs, rather, to this new kind of scholarship (new as in about 100 years old) that is more akin to a legal brief than to anything truly scientific. Just enough facts are gathered for an advocate to make a case, and all opposing facts are completely overlooked.

The first time I witnessed her ability to distort history was on television several years ago, and what I heard was quite astonishing. She stated her own history of the ancient Church, one in which women had all the authority. This, in itself, is not only a false history, but a demonstration that her mind works along political lines that would have been alien to the ancient Christians. She went on to say that Saint Ignatius of Antioch wrote his epistles that placed emphasis on the authority of bishops (more than simple authority was taught by Ignatius), because he wanted to strengthen his own power. Of course, the truth is that Saint Ignatius wrote all of those epistles after his death sentence, as he was being taken by soldiers to Rome where he was to die in the arena, and after he had left behind all of the authority and responsibility that he had in the Church in Antioch to a new bishop, being led away as a prisoner in chains. Whether or not a person like Elaine Pagels wants to agree with the teaching about the epicopal office contained in his letters, he could not have furthered his “power” in any possible way, because he was going to be killed in a very short time, executed as entertainment for a crowd of Roman pagans.

Pagels’ writings about Saint Irenaeus (c.132-202) portray another ancient bishop as a man trying to strengthen his own power, as a rather nasty fellow who suppressed the truth just to amplify his own position. The truth is, every time a bishop held his head up during the days of the Roman persecution, he took his life in his hands. Every time he drew attention to himself he risked death. As Saint Gregory the Great reminds us, early on in Pastoral Care, the bishops of the early centuries were the first in line to be martyred.

How tragic it is that a modern feminist, thinking in worldly terms, ascribes mean motives to great saints who faced the penalty of death every day of their lives. The idea that their service was about power is rather ridiculous, because they had no power in a time when they were living like fugitives, always subject at any moment to someone’s whim to denounce them to the authorities to be killed. Their lives were spent on the altar of sacrifice every day. It was not about power.

Saints Irenaeus of Lyons and Ignatius of Antioch are not here to defend their own reputations. Talk about lies and slander.
__________________________
By the way, here are the two relevant comments, the first by my detractor, the second my reply:

Jordan Stratford+ said...
Her claim was that she discovered these ancient writings and that the Church has been hiding them away from the world, due to their fear that the Gnostic writings would be discovered, and prove that there were different versions of Christianity from the start. (quoting me)

Dr. Pagels has never claimed to have discovered anything. You are no doubt aware of this. So why say what you know is not true?

She made up a few fictional items to elaborate on genuine history in the process, such as making up entire passages from her own mind and attributing them to one of the Church fathers. (again, quoting me)


While she has been accused of taking some passages out of context to support her thesis, your claim that she "made up a few fictional items" is bearing false witness. Shame on you.And your use of the term scholar in quotes to somehow imply that Dr. Pagels is not one is simply an ad hominem attack - uncharitable and un-Christian.Lies and slander. This is what you preach for the first Sunday after Christmas?
7:06 PM

I replied with the facts, as follows:

Fr. Robert Hart said...
About Pagel’s claim to have discovered suppressed writings, here are her words from Beyond Belief), p.31 ;

"When I entered the Harvard doctoral program, I was astonished to hear from the other students that Professors Helmut Koester and George MacRae, who taught the early history of Christianity, had file cabinets filled with 'gospels' and 'apocrypha' written during the first centuries… When my fellow students and I investigated these sources we found that they revealed diversity within the Christian movement that later, 'official' versions of Christian history had suppressed so effectively that only now in the Harvard graduate school, did we hear about them."

But, the "suppression" she wites about never occurred, and one did not have to explore file cabinets in Harvard to find these Gnostic works. One needed only to read some of the Fathers of the Church, which makes her ignorance until that time (as a Doctoral student) rather puzzling. First I quote Pagels herself, and then a comment by Matthew Gross (I will prvide the link to the full work by Gross).

On page 97 of Beyond Belief, Pagels has simply invented a lie, or fiction if you prefer, which she repeated later in the book (on p. 176):

“But in 367 [AD] Athanasius, the zealous bishop of Alexandria––an admirer of Irenaeus––issued an Easter letter in which he demanded that Egyptian monks destroy all writings, except for those he specifically listed as 'acceptable,' even 'canonical' …But someone––perhaps monks at the monastery of St. Pachomius––gather dozens of the books Athanasius wanted to burn, removed them from the monastery library, sealed them in a heavy, six-foot jar, and intending to hide them, buried them on a nearby hillside near Nag Hammadi.”

Gross says it simply:
“In this section of the chapter, Pagels continues her claim that Irenaeus and later Athanasius acted in an authoritarian manner, demanding that certain writings be destroyed. Pagels evidence for this is Athanasius’ Easter letter of 367. However, Athanasius letter of AD 367 does not contain any demands that any writings be destroyed. It does not address Egyptian monks at all. It does not name any specific writings other than ones that are acceptable or canonical. At this critical point it appears that Pagelian orthodoxy has slipped into the realm of falsehood, of myth, and of speculation in an attempt to bolster its plausibility.”

Gross further writes: "Pagels was forced to mischaracterize the writings of Athanasius and actually resorted at one point to fabricating a quote in order to make her point.”

Here is the Link: http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/mat_gross/NT.Gross.Matthew_BeyondBeliefbyElainePagels.html

Other such critiques are available, and here is a link to one more:

http://www.friesian.com/pagels.htm

For now this should keep you busy.

10:31 PM