CHARLES THE MARTYR
Sta,—This discussion appears to be shifting its ground. It began with the question whether King Charles_I had been canonised, .and evidence was brought forward to show that he had. I should have added that the Kalendar of the Scottish Book of Common Prayer (1929) includes: " January. 30th. Beheading of King Charles I," although it Was not included in the English Revised Prayer Book of 1928, " presumably for political reasons " (Mr. Lowther Clarke, in Liturgy and Worship, p. 220). There are five Church dedications in the name of King Charles the Martyr.
The new question is whether King Charles ought to have been canonised. It is ..an important principle that the canonisation of a saint by any particular Church is a matter that concerns the Church Universal, " the blessed. company' of all faithful people " ; and therefore the interposition of my neighbour, Dr. Sangster, of Westminster Central Hall, in the belated role of a Methodist advocates -diaboli, is not to be resented. But what Bishop Creighton said, in the passage quoted, was that Charles I died for the Church and episcopacy: Dr. Sangster adroitly substitutes " the establishment," a word with a high emotional colour which recalls bygone controversies. Again, I have myself written else- where: " It is true that Charles paid the price of his political duplicity. It is also true that he paid the price of his religious constancy." But it is surely a little rhetorical to describe him as ".a deliberate liar " ? Dr. Sangster may at least be reminded of the entry in John Wesley's Journal, December 28th, 1781: "By reading in Thurloe's Memoirs the original papers of the treaty at Uxbridge, agnovi fatam Carthaginis! I saw it was then flatly impossible for the King to escape destruction. For the Parliament were resolved to accept no terms, unless he would (1) give up all his friends to beggary or death and (2) require all the three kingdoms to swear to the Solemn League and Covenant. He had no other choice. Who then can blame him for breaking off that treaty ? " (vi. 341). The other significant entry relating to " poor King Charles " is under Sunday, January 30th, 1785: " From these words, `Righteous art Thou, 0 Lord, and true are Thy judgements,' I endeavoured to point out those sins which were the chief cause of the awful transaction we commemorate this day. I believe the chief sin which brought the King to the block was his persecuting the real Christians, whereby he drove them into the hands of designing men, which issued in his own destruc- tion " (vii. 49). It is clear that Wesley did not scruple to observe this solemn anniversary, whatever his private views on the religious policy of Charles I.
Your other correspondent, Mr. Gelsthorpe, has put his finger on the real point at issue. Personally, I should argue that this is a case of a " delayed action " martyrdom ; not " up to the last," not after the outbreak of the Second Civil Wait, but between May, 1646, and May, 1648, Charles could have saved his life and his crown by definitely sacrificing the Church of England ; but it is difficult either to prove or to disprove that at any specific moment he was directly conscious of this choice. It is true that he was executed on January 30th, 1649, for the entirely different reason that there could be no peace while he lived. The fact remains that he has been canonised by the Church of England, and it is high time that we had the courage to restore his name officially to the Prayer Book Kalendar, although in the present distress there are, of course, more urgent matters requiring our immediate consideration.—Yours. faithfully,
Previous page
