He was executed shortly after the Resto Hugh Peters among the chief of them, who were by name accused of manifest impieties by their adversaries."-Burnet' says likewise," He was a very vicious man." And Langbaine hints something of an "affair that he had with a butcher's wife of Sepulchre's."— Peters himself was not insensible of his ill character amongst the opposite party, nor of the particular vice laid to his charge by Langbaine: but he terms it reproach, and attributes it to his zeal in the cause."By my zeal, it seems, I have exposed myself to all manner of reproach: but wish you to know, that (besides your mother) I have had no fellowship that way with any woman since I knew her, having a godly wife before also, I bless God." A man is not allowed to be a witness in his own cause; nor should, I think, his adversaries' testimony be deemed full proof. One loaden with such an accusation as Peters was, and suffering as a traitor, when the party spirit ran high, and revenge actuated the breasts of those who bore rule: for such a one to be traduced, and blackened beyond his deserts, is no wonder. It is indeed hard to prove a negative; and the concurring testimony of writers to Peters's bad character, makes one with difficulty suspend assent unto it. But if the following considerations be weighed, I shall not, perhaps, be blamed, for saying it was a question whether he was accused justly, or not? 1. The accusations against him came from known enemies, those who hated the cause he was engaged in, and looked on it as detestable. It may easily therefore "Hist. vol. I. P. 264. b Dramatic Poets, p. 339. Legacy, p. 106. ration; though doubtless, he had as much be supposed, that they were willing to blacken the actors in it, or at least, that they were susceptible of ill impressions concerning them, and ready to believe any evil thing they heard of them. This will, if attended to, lessen the weight of their evidence considerably, and dispose us to think that they may have misrepresented the characters of their opponents. Barwick, at first sight, appears an angry partial writer; Burnet's characters were never thought too soft; they were both enemies to the republican party, though not equally furious and violent. Add to this, that neither of them, as far as appears, knew any thing of Peters themselves; and therefore what they write must be considered only as common fame, than which nothing is more uncertain. 2. The times in which Peters was on the stage, were far enough from favouring vice (public vice, for it is of this Peters is accused) in the ministerial character. He must be a novice in the history of those times, who knows not what a precise, demure kind of men the preachers among the parliamentarians were. They were careful not only of their actions, but likewise of their words and looks; and allowed not themselves in the innocent gaieties and pleasures of life. I do not take on me to say, they were as good, as they pretended to be. For aught I know, they might be, yea, perhaps, were proud, conceited, censorious, uncharitable, avaricious. But then drunkenness, whoredom, adultery, and swearing, were things quite out of vogue among them, nor was it suffered in them. So that how vicious soever their inclinations might be, they were obliged to conceal them, and keep them from the eye of the public. It was this sobriety of behaviour, : 器 this strictness of conversation, joined with their popular talents in the pulpit, that created them so much respect, and caused such a regard to be paid unto their advice and direction. The people in a manner adored them, and were under their government almost absolutely. So that the leading men in the house of commons, and those, who after the king's death were in the administration of affairs, were obliged to court them, and profess to admire them. Hence it was, that men of such sense as Pym, Hampden, Holles, Whitlock, Selden, St. John, Cromwell, &c. sat so many hours hearing their long-winded weak prayers, and preachments; that men of the greatest note took it as an honour to sit with the assembly of divines, and treated them with so much deference and regard. For it was necessary to gain the preachers, in order to maintain their credit with the people: Now, certainly, if Peters had been a man so vicious as he is represented, he could have had no influence over the people, nor would he have been treated by the then great men, in the manner he was. For they must have parted with him even for their own sakes, unless they would have been looked on as enemies to godliness. But Peters was caressed by the great; his prophecies were received as oracles by the people; and he was of great service to Crom well: and therefore he could not surely (at least pub licly) be known to be infamous for more than one kind of wickedness, as Barwick asserts. In short, hypocrisy was the characteristic of Peters's age: and, DRYDEN. 3. Peters's patrons seem to render the account of his wickedness very improbable. We have seen that he was entertained by the earl of Warwick, sir Thomas Fairfax, and Oliver Cromwell, and that he was much reason to think he should have escaped, as many others". The charge against him was for compassing and imagining the death of the king, by conspiring with Oliver Cromwell, at several times and places; and procuring the caressed and rewarded by the parliament. How improbable then is it, that Peters should be infamous for wickedness! His patrons were never accused of personal vices; they were men who made high pretensions to religion; and the cause they fought for, they talked of (if they did not think it to be) as the cause of God. Now, with what face could they have done this, if their chaplain, confident and tool, had been known to have been a very vicious man? Or, how could they have talked. against scandalous ministers, who employed one most scandalous? In short, how could they reward Peters publicly, when they always professed great zeal for godliness, and were for promoting it to the highest pitch? Men of their wisdom can hardly be thought to have acted so inconsistent a part; nor is there any thing in their whole conduct, which would lead one to think they could be guilty of it. From all these considerations therefore I think it reasonable to make it a question, whether Peters was charged justly with great vices? 15 As much reason to think he should have escaped, as many others]. "I thought the act of indemnity would have included me, but the hard character upon me excluded me"." And no wonder he should think so, if it was true, "that he never had his hand in any soldiers to demand justice, by preaching divers sermons to persuade them to take off the king, comparing him to Barabbas, &c. To which he pleaded in his own defence, that the war began before he came into England; that since his arrival, he had en man's blood, but saved many in life and estate"." All that was laid to Peters's charge was words; but words, it must be owned, unfit to be uttered: yet if we consider how many greater offenders than Peters escaped capital punishment, we may possibly think he had hard measure. Harry Martyn, John Goodwin, and John Milton, spoke of Charles the First most reproachfully, and the two latter vindicated his murther in their public writings. As early as 1643, we find Martyn speaking out plainly, "that it was better the king and his children were destroyed, than many;" which words were then looked on as so high and dangerous, that he was committed by the house to the Tower; though shortly after released and re-admitted to his place in parliament. He continued still virulent against the king, was one of his judges, and acted as much as possible against him. Goodwin justified the seclusion of the members, which was the prelude to Charles's tragedy; vindicated his murther, and went into all the measures of his masters; and being a man of ready wit and great learning, was of good service to them. And as for Milton, there is no one but knows, that he wrote most sharply against king Charles, and set forth his actions in a terribly Legacy, p. 104. See remark 6. b Whitlock, p. 71. 1 |