« PreviousContinue »
LAUD, “ 25, and lastly. That no person shall be admitted to holy Abp. Cant, orders, nor suffered to preach, catechise, administer the sacra
ments, or perform any other ecclesiastical function, without first subscribing the canons."
And now to instance some of the particular objections, with reference to the twenty-five canons already recited. They complained that the first, the twelfth, and the thirteenth mounted the regale to an excessive pitch, and left the Kirk, and by consequence the Christian religion, at the mercy of the civil government; that the second, fourth, fifth, and fifteenth canons referred to the Book of Common Prayer, which was not yet finished, or at least not published. Now, the urging subscription to a book not extant, and which they had never seen, was tying them up too implicitly, and a hardship upon conscience and understanding. By what was enjoined in the sixth canon, they thought themselves obliged to resign too far to the judgment and authority of the bishops. The tenth canon, touching divorce, they conceived not well founded, because it gave no preference to the innocent party; but put both the injuring and injured under the same restraints. They disliked the sixteenth, pretending themselves bound to the form of bidding prayer, prescribed in our fifty-fifth canon ; which was, in effect, they said, to subject them to the discipline of a foreign Church. Against the rest they remonstrated in general, that the bishops were established in too absolute a jurisdiction, and that papal idolatry was revived upon them. In short, their exceptions were some of them with, and some of them without reason. Thus far for the matter. But then, as
for the manner, they had stronger colours for complaint ; for And the they never were publicly debated in their assemblies ; the manner of imposing
passing them was never put to the question, but imposed withthese canons, out their consent. This method of proceeding, it must be
said, was somewhat unprecedented, and contrary to the usage of the Church. These measures were extremely shocking in Scotland. In this kingdom the presbyters had formerly disowned the king's supremacy in the extent maintained by the canons: the ministers were so far from complying to this length, that they asserted an independent power in the Church for convening their assemblies ; and that the decrees made there were binding without any confirmation from the crown.
And therefore, to have points of belief prescribed, and rules of CHARLES religious practice set them by the prerogative, was looked on as intolerable vassalage. But not to insist any further upon these exceptions, it was thought by moderate people, that the publishing the canons before the Common Prayer was beginning at the wrong end ; that the requiring submission to things unseen, alarmed the people to a jealousy of wild innovation,-gave them time to improve their prejudice, and form parties against the Liturgy when it appeared. Whereas, had the Common Prayer come out first, it might have met with a smoother passage, and the canons been less critically examined.
To go back to England. The last year, the archbishop Archbishop receiving letters from the queen of Bohemia (as they called motes a colher), about promoting a collection for the banished ministers lection for
the palatine of the palatinate, solicited so strongly with the king, that he ministers. granted letters-patent to pass through the kingdom for this purpose. This brief being brought to the archbishop for direction and conveyance, he excepted against the wording of the following clause, which stands thus :—“ Whose cases are the more to be deplored, for that this extremity is fallen upon them for their sincerity and constancy in the true religion, which we, together with them, professed, and which we are all bound in conscience to maintain to the utmost of our powers. Whereas these religious and godly persons, being involved among other their countrymen, might have enjoyed their estates and fortunes, if with other backsliders, in the times of trial, they would have submitted themselves to the Antichristian yoke, and have renounced or dissembled the profession of the true religion." Upon the reading this passage, there were two things which embarrassed the archbishop.
First. The religion of the palatine Churches was affirmed to He excepts be the same with ours. This assertion is what Laud could not clauses in the digest. He knew the five points were held by these Reformers letters-pain the Sublapsarian sense; that these palatines maintained a why. parity in the clergy, in direct contradiction to the doctrine and government of the English Church ; and that their professor of divinity, Paræus, formerly mentioned, asserts a power in the inferior magistracy, to control and resist the prince; and that this divine passing uncensured in his own country, was supposed to have delivered more than his private opinion. Now, not to repeat the rest, the archbishop was well asured this last
LAUD, doctrine was point blank against the homilies; in which resistAbp. Cant.
ance of the supreme magistrate is condemned in the most decisive terms imaginable ; and that without any exception or reservation whatsoever. For these reasons the archbishop did not believe this part of the clause defensible, “ that the religion of the palatines was the same with ours, and that we ought to maintain it to the utmost of our power.” To which may be
added, that the palatine ministers were in the same condition 765. with the Genevians. They had no episcopal ordination, by
consequence are self-originated, and without any authoritative mission ; and being thus essentially defective in their character, what right can they pretend to represent our Saviour, and seal covenants in his name?
The other exceptionable passage in the letters-patent, was calling communion with the Church of Rome“ an anti-Christian yoke.” Now, this has the appearance of an intemperate censure, and is more than is determined in the Church of England. Those who drew these letters-patent seemed not to have been aware that the orders in the Church of England are derived from the Church of Rome : if, therefore, the Church of Rome is an anti-Christian society, her authority is gone, and her privileges forfeited; by consequence, she is in no capacity to convey sacerdotal power in ordinations. From whence the next inference is, that the benefit of the priesthood and the force of holy ministrations must be lost in the English Church'. Upon these considerations, as may be reasonably conjectured, the archbishop was shocked with the brief ; and therefore, to prevent the mischief which might ensue, he acquainted the king with these crude passages. His majesty, being satisfied with Laud's objections, gave orders for expunging the clause in a
new draught. And now the letters-patent being couched in Cyprian. defensible expressions, the archbishop promoted the collection. Anglic. July 26,
In July, this summer, a proclamation was published against 1635. profane swearing and cursing, pursuant to an act in the late 21 James 1.
reign. An office was likewise erected for receiving the penalty Penalties of of the statute: the monies arising from thence were to be paid swearing to the respective bishops, and distributed among the poor where given to the
the offender dwelt. Rushworth,
The king continued his care for recovering the clergy of Scotland to a competent maintenance, and retrieving the patri
| These remarks are worthy the consideration of certain denominations of the religious world.
part 2. P. 299.
mony of the Church ; but, to prevent hasty steps and uncau- CHARLES tious management in that country, Laud wrote to the archbishop of St. Andrew's, to proceed warily, to wait for opportunities, and not precipitate matters : for that, at present, things were somewhat unripe, and not prepared for any free motion. Id. p. 314.
In the latter end of this year, Juxon, bishop of London, was Juron, made lord-treasurer: it was by Laud's interest the staff was London,
bishop of put in his hand. This office, being a place of the greatest made lordbenefit in the kingdom, and not executed by a churchman since the reign of Henry VII., was grudged Juxon, and heightened the great men's disgust against Laud. However, the archbishop being well assured of Juxon's integrity, and believing his being put in this post would be a service to the exchequer and strengthen the Church's interest, he resolved to stand the event of recommending to so invidious a preferment. As for capacity to manage the business, Juxon was not ill furnished: for Laud, who had lately been joined in commission for the treasury, had given him instructions. And, as for the conduct of this bishop, he was every way equal to the employment, and managed to great commendation. But whether the archbishop found his account in bringing him to this place of trust and profit, will bear a question ; for some great courtiers, being disappointed in so considerable an expectation, disrelished the bishops, and fell off to the Puritan party.
To conclude this year with the archbishop's account of the The archstate of his province to the king. As to his own diocese, he bishop's complained “the French and Dutch Churches at Canterbury, count of his
province. Maidstone, and Sandwich, notwithstanding they made some show of conformity to his injunctions, had not complied so
horoughly as might reasonably be expected. In the diocese of London, Dr. Stoughton, rector of Aldermanbury; Simpson, curate and lecturer of St. Margaret's, New Fish-street; John Goodwin, vicar of St. Stephen's, Coleman-street; and Viner, lecturer of St. Lawrence, in the Old Jewry, were convented for breach of canons. But, upon their promise of amendment and submission, the bishop proceeded no further against them. Most, if not all, of these men went into the rebellion afterwards, and were remarkable for their misbehaviour.
“The bishop of Lincoln certified, that he knew but one nonconforming clergyman in that large diocese. By the bishop of Bath and Wells' certificate to the archbishop, it appeared
LAUD, the diocese was brought forward to very good order. For Abp. Cant.
instance, there was no single lecture in any corporation, but a combination of divines preached by turns; and, over and above, the afternoon sermons were turned into catechizing in all parishes. Corbet, bishop of Norwich, being dead about half a year since, there was no certificate returned from thence; but the archbishop, by his visitation, perceived the whole diocese was much out of order, and more especially at Yarmouth and Ipswich ; and that Ward, preacher at this last town, had been consured in the High Commission Court, for preaching against the Common Prayer Book, and other resembling misdemeanors. The bishops of Oxford, Sarum, Ely, Chichester, St. Asaph, and Bristol, certify an entire conformity of all the clergy, without so much as a single instance to the contrary. The bishop of Landaff found only two noted schismatics, Wroth and Erbury, who misled a great many ignorant people ; but, to check them in their course, articles were preferred against them in the High Commission. The clergy in the dioceses of Hereford, Winchester, Peterborough, Rochester, and Exeter, were regular and well managed, and paid a due submission to his majesty's instructions. The late bishop of St. David's (now. translated to Hereford) complains, that few clergymen in that poor rmoete diocese were tolerably qualified to instruct the people. The bishop of Gloucester informs his metropolitan,
that, upon the score of the great number of impropriations in 766. his diocese, the clergy are very slenderly supported, and that
their poverty draws them to popularity and faction. From the
remaining bishops of Coventry and Lichfield, Worcester, and Hist. of the Bangor, the archbishop had received no certificate.” Troubles, &c. of Ab
The beginning of the next year, a contest happened between the archbishop and the two universities, concerning the right of visitation. The archbishop claimed a right of visiting, upon the privilege of his see. The universities, on the other side,
alleged this jurisdiction was vested in the king, upon the score Fol. 246. of his being their founder. The cause was brought before the at Hampton- council-board, and stands thus reported in Laud's register: court. The archbishop claims “ His majesty, sitting in council, was graciously pleased to a right to visit both
hear and determine a difference and debate lately risen between universities, the lord archbishop of Canterbury his grace, and the two uni“jure metropolitico." versities of England, concerning the right of visiting the said