James Ussher and the Execution of Charles I

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phil D.

ὁ βαπτιστὴς
James Ussher (1581–1656) was a highly respected Archbishop of Armagh, in the Church of Ireland (Anglican), who also authored the Irish Articles (1615). This important Reformed confession, along with Ussher’s A Body of Divinity, significantly influenced the Westminster Standards [1]. While broadly sympathetic to Puritan aims, Ussher twice refused invitations (parliamentary summons, really) to participate in the Westminster Assembly. This was largely on account of the gathering not having been sanctioned by King Charles I, which offended the bishop’s unyielding royalist convictions.

Following the Irish Rebellion of 1641, Ussher remained in England until his death, where he was a frequent companion of Charles. Ever loyal to the King, the following account is from Ussher’s onetime chaplain, Richard Parr (1617–91).

The Primate proceeded to London and again took up his residence at the house of Lady Peterborough, whence he saw for the last time his beloved Sovereign on the day of his murder [January 30, 1649]. …The house being just over against Charing Cross, divers of the Countesse's gentlemen and servants got upon the leads of the house, from whence they could see plainly what was acting at Whitehall.​
As soon as his Majesty came upon the scaffold, some of the Household came and told my Lord Primate of it, and askt him if he would see the King once more before he was put to death. My Lord was at first unwilling, but was at last persuaded to go up; as well out of his desire to see his Majesty once again, as also curiosity, since he could scarce believe what they told him unless he saw it.​
When he came upon the leads, the King was in his speech; the Lord Primate stood still, and said nothing, but sighed, and lifting up his hands and eyes, full of tears, towards Heaven, seemed to pray earnestly. But when his Majesty had done speaking, and had pulled off his cloak and doublet, and stood stripped in his waistcoat, and that the villains in vizards began to put up his hair, the good Bishop no longer able to endure so dismal a sight, and being full of grief and horror for that most wicked fact now ready to be executed, grew pale and began to faint; so that if he had not been observed by his own servant and some others that stood near him, who thereupon supported him, he had swooned away.​
So they presently carried him down, and laid him on his bed, where he used those powerful weapons, which God has left his people in such afflictions, viz. prayers and tears; tears that so horrid a sin should be committed, and prayers that God would give his Prince patience and constancy, to undergo these cruel sufferings; and that he likewise would not, for the vindication of his own honour and providence, permit so great a wickedness to pass.​
…The Lord was so deeply sensible, and afflicted, that he kept that day as a private fast so long as he lived; and would bewail the scandal and reproach it cast not only on our own nation, but religion itself; saying that thereby a great advantage was given to Popery, and that from thenceforward the Priests would with greater success advance their designs against the Church of England, and Protestants in general.​
[Richard Parr, The Life of James Usher Lord Arch-Bishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland…, (London: [s.n.], 1686), 72f.]​

[1] See: Harrison Perkins, Westminster Assembly’s Probable Appropriation of James Ussher’s Theology; Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 37, no. 1 (2019): 45–63.​
 
Over the years I've changed my position. I used to be pro-Cromwell. Now I take Ussher's view.

I have mixed opinions... I don't think Charles' execution was legally justified, and it did contribute to the eventual downfall of presbyterianism and, by extension, puritanism in the COE. On the other hand, Charles' assertion of the Divine Right led him to act despotically and illegally. He seemed to go out of his way to make enemies of Parliament. Cromwell was a conundrum, both respectable and overly egotistical.
 
Last edited:
I have mixed opinions... I don't think Charles' execution was legally justified, and it did contribute to the eventual downfall of presbyterianism and, by extension, puritanism in the COE. On the other hand, Charles' assertion of the Divine Right led him to act despotically and illegally. He seemed to go out of his way to make enemies of Parliament. Cromwell was a conundrum, both respectable and overly egotistical.

Agreed. Charles was an incompetent monarch and he had a remarkable ability to misread every situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top