Of Judges and Regicides Trivia Quiz

Answer: The cleansing of the English church from all doctrine and all forms of worship not directly supported by the Holy Scripture

Through the labor of such visionaries as Calvin, Knox and Wyclif, the scales fell from the eyes of many in the time of Elizabeth. The mirror of Scripture was held up the Church of England and it was found to be befouled and corrupt, enslaved to an unscriptural episcopate, mired in vain ritual and ceremony. The places of worship were filled with idolatrous images and objects. These the ignorant venerated above and in contradiction to the very Word of God.

Is it any wonder that those with understanding sought to remedy this intolerable state of affairs? Churches were organized in which congregations elected presbyters (elders of the local church) and vested them with the authority that Pope, Cardinal and Bishop had wrongly usurped. Worshipers treated altars, communion tables and church decorations as the mere worldly things that they, in fact, were. A wave of wholesome reform washed parish after parish clean. Our enemies scorned us, calling us "Puritans" as a term of abuse and derision.

Elizabeth sought through her bishops to suppress and silence us. Some of our godly leaders in the Commons sought to disestablish the Anglican Church, replacing it with a congregational system (Presbyterian). The Queen forbade discussion of the bill.

These weighty matters did not come to resolution during the reigns of Elizabeth I or her successor James I. One could only describe the wound in the Church as "festering" when the hapless Charles I ascended the to throne of England.

Answer: All of these

I admit that Charles I could claim the virtue of believing that a single core of doctrine and a single form of church governance must be enforced (as did Elizabeth I and James I), but Charles I shared his father's erroneous view that this ecclesiastical uniformity must ultimately be decided by the monarch and enforced by an episcopal Anglican church. [Episcopal in this context refers to governance by bishops.] We Puritans rightly divined that each congregation must elect its own leaders who, illumined by the light of God's living Word, would shepherd the flock. Furthermore, rather than temporal authority holding sway in the churches, the moral authority of the church must ultimately shape, yea verily, even control, the actions of the secular government.

The wholesome influence of the true doctrine and pure, scriptural thinking must overcome the manifold wickedness of society. As Puritans, we did not extend tolerance either to lewd embraces or to the lascivious practice of mixed dancing. The scandalous adornment of women was not permitted. We were under compulsion to expose and condemn the evils inherent in theaters, in bull and bear baiting, and in playing cards. And, of course, we enforced strict adherence to the Sabbath, during which neither games nor, indeed, any frivolous activity could be countenanced.

Answer: William Laud

Alexander Leighton, author of a book critical of the episcopacy, was clapped in irons and confined to a rodent infested cell for fifteen weeks. After receiving thirty lashes, he was pilloried, his face branded, his ears cut off and his nose slit. He was then sentenced to life imprisonment. This is but one example of the arbitrary cruelties afflicted on Puritans, contrary to the laws of England, through the exertions of William Laud. Is it any surprise that we executed that beastly, evil man when he came into our power?

Some might complain that the House of Commons, while under Puritan control, legislated severe penalties for heretics, even to the extent of condemning to death those so enslaved to Satan as to deny the Trinity. Yet, we purposed to support the Holy Scriptures, not the power of men, and can claim impartiality in our administration of justice.

William Prynne rightly declared all embraces "lewd", all mixed dancing lascivious. Prynne clearly proved from Scripture in "Histriomastix, the Players Scourge" that Satan originated drama as a means for his followers to worship him. His scholarly dissertation earned him the disapprobation of Charles' queen, who herself deigned to appear as an actress in a court masque. As a result of the Queen's displeasure, the heroic Prynne was debarred for life from the practice of law, fined £5000, pilloried and had both ears cut off publicly, one in London, the other three miles away, in Westminster!

Richard Lovelace, a supporter of ungodly Anglican ritual, boldly and impudently petitioned the Puritan parliament, beseeching them to reinstate the Anglican liturgy. The kindliness and moderation of the punishment that the Puritan government meted out contrasts sharply with the wicked intolerance of the adherents of Charles I. Parliament imprisoned the hapless Lovelace for only seven weeks for his reckless proposal.

John Pym's astute political leadership was invaluable in the early stages of our conflict with the King.

(Praise be to the Lord that He did later see fit to inspire the draughtsmen of the English Bill of Rights of 1688-89 to place a complete and total ban on all "cruel and unusual punishments", and likewise to inspire the American Bill of Rights which repeated that selfsame ban).

Answer: He allowed the Pope elevate the Archbishop of Canterbury to Cardinal.

Urged on by Lord Buckingham, Charles seemed determined to bully the duly elected (and predominantly Puritan) House of Commons into funding his wild schemes for a war with Spain. From his throne he told Parliament in 1628, "Take not this as threatening; I scorn to threaten any but my equals." Having been elected to Parliament for the first time in 1628, the noble Oliver Cromwell heard the King's taunt.

The Parliament did not provide the funds the King craved until it had obtained from the King his signature to a "Petition of Right" reaffirming the authority of Parliament over taxation and promising adherence to the requirements of Habeas Corpus and trial by jury. The King later denied that this document inhibited his right to collect import and export duties.

Parliament sought to ensure that English religious practice conform to proper Calvinist theology and to fix proper penalties for Catholics and other heretics who openly violated these precepts. The King dissolved Parliament to prevent this wholesome and godly legislation from being enacted, although he was compelled to send troops before the members of the Commons would disperse. It was eleven years before a chastened king again called Parliament into session.

Answer: Divorce from his Catholic queen

Having dissolved Parliament in 1628, Charles resumed all his previous abuses and tyrannies including: arbitrary arrests, forced billeting of soldiers and illegal loans and taxes. To these, he added the odium of marrying a Catholic. However, Charles made one additional error, without which we might not have prevailed: he compelled the Scots to accept the supremacy of English bishops over the Scottish presbyters. When the Scots rebelled, the King was forced in 1640 to call the "Short Parliament" to beg for funds to suppress the rebelling Scots. The predominantly Puritan Commons refused and Charles immediately dissolved it. His subsequent military expedition against the Scots not only failed but left him with no alternative but to pay an indemnity of £850 per day until an acceptable treaty could be negotiated with the recalcitrant Scots. Without the help of our Scottish allies we could have hardly prevailed in the conflict that was to come.

When Charles summoned what would become known as the Long Parliament, he was desperate. Charles was forced to acquiesce to the impeachment and imprisonment of both Bishop Laud and Charles' most influential advisor, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. Ultimately Charles was even compelled to sign the order for Wentworth's execution. Finally, our torrent of upright and necessary legislation prompted Charles to accuse five of our leaders of treason and send soldiers into Parliament to arrest them. We were not unaware of the King's design, and the soldiers found that their quarry had fled. We moved our deliberations to a different location from whence we made our generous offer of peace in exchange for control of the army, the church and the government. Stubborn and haughty, Charles fled London and, raising his standard at Nottingham, did most treasonably declare war on the people of England as represented in Parliament.

Answer: All of these

The favors that Charles had bestowed during his reign determined who his supporters were at the outset of conflict with Parliament. Charles supported wage and price controls which provided succor to both peasant and noble at the expense of the godly middle classes and the wealthy Puritan merchants and businessmen. He resolutely protected and sought to extend the prerogatives of the upper hierarchy of the Anglican Church. At a time when Puritans tried to rein in the gross and immoral excesses of artists, playwrights and poets, Charles was their patron and supporter. Of England's prominent poets, only Milton sided with Parliament. Truly have the historians Will and Ariel Durant written: "The colorful Cavaliers, their hair in ringlets, their horses in gay accouterment, had all the romance of the war on their side and all the poets but Milton. The money was with Parliament."

On July 12, 1642 Parliament created a "Committee of Public Safety" and commenced efforts to raise an army. We did not, as some might suppose, present our cause as one seeking to establish the primacy of Parliament over its sovereign. Rather, on August 2, 1642 we published an appeal pointing out that the king would provoke a general uprising of Catholics and that depredations against Protestants would be severe.

Answer: Agreement that the Scottish form of ecclesiastical government would hold sway in England and Ireland as well as Scotland and the payment of £30,000 per month

The involvement of Scottish troops in our Civil War was regrettable, but necessary. Charles' wife absconded to the Continent with the crown jewels and used them to purchase munitions that she brought back to England. The King induced Irish Catholic troops to mount an invasion of English territory in order to support his cause. Correspondence from and to the king seized in battle showed that he planned to repeal laws against Catholics when his victory was secure, which shows that our fears of Papist sympathies were justified.

I must admit a weakness in our generalship in the first two years of the war. But, during this critical time, despite his lack of previous experience, Oliver Cromwell distinguished himself as a bold leader and effective strategist. When the New Model Army was formed in 1645, Parliament chose Oliver Cromwell to train it. In that army I, William Goffe, received my commission as a captain in 1645.

Answer: They stripped churches of religious images.

Our Lord Protector's success as a military leader demonstrated the favor of God. Oliver Cromwell brought the victory at Marston Moor in 1644 and again at Naseby in 1645. As a result of Crowell's training, the New Model army was disciplined in its habits, not stooping to rape, theft or wanton destruction. We went into battle shouting with joy and fury. Our camps were tidy and profanity was not heard there. As the opportunity presented itself, we removed profane art and idols from places of worship and chased away clergy that supported the episcopal cause.

Charles attempted to win the Scots to his cause - to no avail. The Scots offered to support Charles in return for making Presbyterianism the state religion for the British Isles, but to this proposal Charles would not assent. In return for £400,000 the Scots quit England and turned Charles over to us. Charles was given into the custody of my father-in-law, Edward Whalley. Although some counseled harsh treatment of the King, my father-in-law would not hear of it.

Answer: The Commons declared that they had "the supreme power".

In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, unfortunate divisions became evident. "Levelers" agitated for an outrageous agenda that included abandonment of distinctions of rank, universal male suffrage and wide ranging religious tolerance. Some supported fully independent congregations; others called for governance by Presbyters and more than a few longed to restore the monarchy.

The Lord Protector himself sympathized for a while with restoring Charles. We marched into the disorder of London and restored order and godliness.

Some rejected Cromwell's compromises, and one dissenter had to be shot before agreement could be reached. In these confusing times, Charles escaped, formed an alliance with the Scots and civil war flared anew. (Following his escape, Charles sent a letter to my father-in-law thanking him for his kind treatment.)

Answer: Charles was offered freedom in return for naming Oliver Cromwell's son his successor.

Arrogance, profligacy and a talent for making enemies caused the downfall of Charles I. These defects of Charles' character manifested themselves ins religious persecution, disregard for English laws and liberties, unjust warfare and illegal taxation.

His stubborn determination to prosecute his cause to the bitter end required his condemnation and execution. My father-in-law, Edward Whalley and I, William Goffe, both signed the King's death warrant. Some call us judges; others term us regicides. Would you, then, be our judge? May the Lord be our judge at the Latter Day!