LAUD, Cornelius Burges, John White, Stephen Marshal, Edmund Abp. Cant. Calamy, and Thomas Hill. These prelates and divines met in the Jerusalem-chamber at the dean of Westminster's, and spent six days in debate. The greatest part of the company being Calvinists, either in doctrine or discipline, it is no wonder to find them remonstrate against the management of Church matters. Fuller's Ch. Hist. book 2. 800. Some complained that all the tenets of the council of Trent had been preached and printed, excepting some points of statepopery, where the king's supremacy was touched, and the statutes made the doctrine treason. Amongst these pretended heterodoxies (for certainly all of them were not so) they instanced the affirming "the significancy of good works towards justification; private confession, by a particular recital of the penitent's sins;" and that this was a necessary condition; "that the oblation of the consecrated elements is a true sacrifice; that prayers for the dead and monastic vows are defensible ;" and, to swell the charge, they added the holding the Five Points the Arminian way, with some advances towards Socinianism. Secondly. They inquired into some excesses, as they call them, and innovations in discipline. Amongst these grievances they reckoned setting candlesticks in parish churches upon the altar in the day-time; making canopies over the communiontables, with traverses of curtains before it. This some of these scrupulous divines blamed, as an imitation of the veil of the temple. They likewise objected against the credenda, or sideboard, where the bread was placed before it was brought for consecration to the communion-table. The enjoining the canonical prayer was another exception; to which they added the carrying newly-baptized children to the altar, and presenting them there to God Almighty. Thirdly. They consulted about reforming the Common Prayer-book. And here the debate was, whether some legendary and some questionable saints, with some superstitious remains, were not to be thrown out of the calendar? Whether it was not proper the lessons should all be taken from canonical Scripture ? Whether the Epistles, Gospels, Psalms, and Hymns, were not to be read in the new translation? Whether times prohibited for marriage were to be continued? Whether it was not advisable to make an order, that none for the future I. should have a licence, or their banns published, unless they CHARLES brought a certificate from the minister that they understood their catechism? And whether the rubric was not to be altered and explained in several particulars? And, lastly, they began to enter upon a regulation of ecclesiastical government. But this was dropped, because the bishop of Lincoln had made some progress upon this head, and promised to bring in a scheme when more at leisure. This consultation held on to the middle of May, when the bill against deans and chapters occasioned a misunderstanding amongst the divines, and broke the meeting. rence. 1640-41. The earl of Strafford's trial is the next remarkable occur- The earl of Strafford's And notwithstanding the main of this narrative may trial. be the business of a state historian; yet some part of it concerns the Church, and therefore must not be unmentioned. An impeachment of high treason, branched into twenty-eight Jan. 30, A.d. articles, was drawn up by the house of commons, and carried by Pym to the upper house. To go on with the charge more effectually, it was voted by the temporal lords that no bishops should be of the committee for inspecting materials, taking depositions, and forming the preparation for the trial. This being a cause of blood, it was suggested the bishops were barred by the canons from having any share in it. et alib. 4 Edw. 3. Mortimer's case. That the bishops' peerage is entire no less than that of the The entiretemporal nobility, I have already proved in my former volume, bishops' ness of the from the history of Becket, Stratford, and Arundel, archbishops peerage. of Canterbury. And in Arundel's case the bishops were al- P. 544. 601, lowed their lay proxy to sit with the temporal lords, and give sentence upon the archbishop. There are several other instances of this kind upon the parliament rolls, in the reigns of Edward III., Henry V., Henry VI., and the present reign; Roger de where the bishops are joined with the temporal barons, either in preparatory committees, or giving judgment in cases of treason. 16 Edw. 3. To proceed to the earl's trial at Westminster-hall; where Berkeley's I shall only mention that part of the charge which relates to 3 Hen. 5. the Church. The ninth article sets forth, "That assuming to himself a Cambridge. power above and against law, he gave a general warrant, em- Duke of powering the lord bishop of Down and Connor's chancellor, 2 Charles 1. and under officers, to attach and arrest the meaner sort, who Earl of after citation should refuse either to appear before them, or case. Thos. de case. concerning the Earl of 28 Hen. 6. Suffolk. Bristol's LAUD, submit to the order and decrees of their courts." To this the Abp. Cant. earl replied, "that such authorities had been usually granted The earl makes a to the bishops in Ireland by former deputies; that, however, being not fully satisfied with the convenience of this way of proceeding, he seldom granted any such warrants; but receiving information that several in the diocese of Down were somewhat refractory, he assisted that bishop in this manner; hearing, however, of some disorders in the execution he recalled his warrants." In the nineteenth article the earl is charged with framing a new and unusual oath in favour of arbitrary government: that this oath was pressed upon the Scotch planters in Ireland; that those who took it were bound not only to acknowledge his majesty's supremacy, but to own the lawfulness of the ceremonies and government of the Irish Church. To this the earl replied, "that the oath was not compulsively significant put upon the Irish Scots, but drawn up in compliance with defence. their own express petition; that this petition is mentioned in the proclamation as the leading motive; that the same oath was enjoined not long after by the English privy-council; and that he had a letter under his majesty's hand for making it a test of loyalty." Lastly, it was urged against the earl of Strafford, that he had preferred popish and infamous persons as the bishop of Waterford, and others, to the highest places in the Church of Ireland. To this the earl's answer was, "that he never preferred any but those he believed honest and conscientious persons; that he could not insure people's manners, nor prophesy upon their future behaviour: and as for the bishop of L'Estrange's Waterford, he had already satisfied the law." Hist. of The article which lay hardest upon the earl was his advising p. 221. 245. the king, as it was pretended, to bring over the Irish army to reduce this kingdom to obedience: these words were said to be spoken at the council-board when the dissolution of the last parliament was resolved: sir Henry Vane was the evidence, who being secretary of state, had taken some imperfect notes of what passed upon that occasion: for disabling this testimony, I shall wave the earl's defence, and only report part of the lord Digby's speech in the house of commons. This lord, when the bill of attainder was debating, declared that secretary Vane was thrice examined upon oath by the preparatory committee. That at his first and second examinations, made at I. some distance of time, when the article concerning the Irish CHARLES army was put to him, he gave this positive answer, "I cannot charge him with that, I can say nothing to that." The lord Digby goes on, and observes, that the juncto, that is, the cabinet, denying they heard the lord Strafford say any such thing, it was thought fit, after several weeks' interval, to examine the secretary once more. And now he recollected himself to purpose, and deposed that Strafford suggested the king might " employ the Irish army to reduce this kingdom," or words to that effect. 66 But this is but a single evidence, contradicted by the rest of the cabinet; and which is more, by this secretary himself, who had twice deposed upon oath he knew nothing of the matter. The lord Digby, though one of the committee for preparing matter, and managing the trial against the earl, was so affected with the disproof of this grand article, that he solemnly washed his hands of Strafford's blood, and refused to concur with the bill. Rushworth, part 3. p. 226. Whitlock's Memorials, ceeded As to the whole charge, the earl made a very handsome defence, and behaved himself to all imaginable advantage.. To give this part of his character in Whitlock's words, who p. 158, 159. was one of the managers against him. "Certainly," (says this gentleman) "never any man acted such a part on such a theatre with more wisdom, constancy, and eloquence, with greater reason, judgment and temper, and with a better grace in all his words and gestures, than this great and excellent person did." In short, the commons distrusting the force of their evidence, p. 43. and being apprehensive the earl would be acquitted by his He is propeers, changed their battery, and proceeded by way of attain- against by der; it was thought none of the crimes marked for treason by tuinder. the law could be proved upon him. However, the famous 25 Edw. 3. statute upon which the prosecutions for treason are grounded, 801. has this clause, "that because some species of treason might then be forgotten, the justices, before they proceeded to give judgment, should bring doubtful and supposed treasons before the king and his parliament, where the matter was to be decided, whether the crime was treason or not.” This clause was thought serviceable to the present purpose, and might give a colour to the bill of attainder. And now, amongst other bill of at cap. 2. move to be excused LAUD, things, it was debated whether the bishops were to vote upon Abp. Cant. the bill. This gave occasion to a great many bitter invectives and personal reflections upon that order; not without the intermixture of threatening in case the spiritual lords should insist on their right of being an essential part of the legislature. However, the temporal peers were saved the trouble of declaring themselves further upon the point, for bishop Williams stood up, and moved in behalf of himself and his brethThe bishops ren, "that they might be excused being present at the trial; and that since they were ecclesiastical persons, they might not voting at his be concerned in matters of blood." These, and such other trial. resembling reasons, were suggested by Williams; which, as the lord Clarendon judiciously observes, are of no great weight. This prelate, finding the commons very desirous of being disencumbered from the bishops' votes, applied strongly to their fears, endeavoured to terrify them with what they might suffer for making the late canons, and never left soliciting till he had prevailed with them to remove the disfavour of the parliament, by requesting to be excused before an order was passed for their absence at the trial. The bishops waving their right thus unseasonably, and abandoning the earl, who had deserved so well of the Church, was looked on as an excess of caution; and probably made some of the temporal lords less solicitous in appearing for them, when their own privileges were further quesLord Cla- tioned, and themselves stood in need of a defence. rendon's Hist. of the Rebellion, p. 216, 217. ment and court in rabble. In short, the bill passed with the commons, but found more opposition in the upper house: however, the mob being countenanced by the earl of Strafford's enemies, came down to the The parlia- parliament-house in formidable numbers, insulted the lords, by crying "Justice! Justice!" and thus either frighted them from sulted by the the house, or overawed the majority into a compliance: the king continuing firm against passing the bill, the rabble came down to Whitehall, repeated their insolent clamour, and meL'Estrange. naced higher than before. The privy-council and judges being called to suggest an expedient for suppressing this treasonable riot, seemed low in their spirits, and gave very mysterious advice; they told the king there was no other way for preSee 13, 14 serving himself and family but by passing the attainder: that the necessity of the case ought to overrule all other considerations: that his majesty was obliged to be more tender of the repealed public safety than of any one person, how innocent soever. Charles 2. cap. 29. where this attainder is |