« PreviousContinue »
ABBOT, made patent. Witness ourself at Westminster, the ninth day Abp. Cant. of October, in the third year of our reign.
“Per ipsum regem.
Pandectæ ('anonum. Held A. D. 459. Can. 12.
It must be confessed, this revocation of the powers of the sequestering hierarchy, purely by the force of the regale, looks like a modern bishop's
way of proceeding. The discipline of the ancient Church was jurisdiction, conveyed through another channel. The council of Antioch
mentions a synod as a proper judicature for the trial of a Beveridge,
bishop; neither does it so much as suppose there could be any other. And by the council of Carthage it is decreed, that in case a bishop is reported a criminal, and a synod cannot conveniently be called, he shall be tried by twelve bishops. By the way, both these councils were held under Christian princes ; and yet the fathers ordered the process against a bishop should be managed by those of his own order. It was not then the custom for princes to lay any penalties upon bishops, unless for crimes against the State. But as to failures in their function, ecclesiastics were only to take notice of such matters.
Thus, for instance, St. Chrysostom was deposed by a synodTheod. Hist. ical sentence. Arcadius, the emperor, though willing to be
rid of him, did not think fit to arrest his jurisdiction, or silence his preaching, by exerting the regale; such proceedings were altogether unprecedented in that age. The Church at that time of day would have been extremely surprised to see a prince supersede a spiritual commission underived from him. But supposing the spiritual authority lay never so much at the pleasure of the crown, was it not somewhat of a hardship the archbishop should be put under an incapacity, and barred the execution of his office, without assigning the reason for this correction, without bringing him to a hearing, and allowing the common liberty of a defence ?
Fuller relates this suspension was drawn on the archbishop for the casual homicide committed in the late reign. But this is a mistake ; for,
First. He had a royal dispensation, already mentioned, to shelter him against the canons.
This must of course make him “rectus in curia,” so far, at least, as to cover him from prosecution.
Secondly. This commission, granted by king Charles, is
Ch. Hist. book 11,
Collect. yol. 1.
wholly silent as to Abbot's former misfortune, and only takes CHARLES notice that “the archbishop cannot at this present in his own person attend the services which are otherwise proper for his 742. cognizance and jurisdiction," &c. And why could he not attend them? Because his majesty was displeased, and would not permit him.
But, after all, the good king was misdirected into these rigours, and believed himself in the right. The archbishop complained the duke of Buckingham was his enemy. This favourite was disappointed in the homage he expected: Abbot, it seems, did not think it proper to make his court to the duke, to treat him with submission, and compliment his standing Rushworth's to the other's courtesy.
Besides, the king was embarrassed with the war, uneasy at the conduct of the parliament; and as measures were taken, had no other way to retrieve his affairs but by borrowing money. Now Sibthorp had laid out himself with a great deal of zeal to set the loan forward ; and Abbot's refusing to recommend this discourse to the public, touched the king in a tender part, and made him more liable to unfavourable impressions.
The learned Heylin believes the king was swayed by another motive. He thought Abbot was somewhat biassed towards the Nonconformists, and too remiss in his government: that for this reason he seized his jurisdiction, and put it in hands more disposed to act for the advantage of the established
Anglic. This year a misunderstanding between the courts of Eng- The French land and France began, upon some disputes touching the parents the government of the queen's fanıily. By the articles of marriage it mily sent
. was agreed her majesty should have a certain number of priests to officiate in her chapel, together with a bishop, who was to be allowed the full exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Some of these ecclesiastics enjoined her majesty a very odd penance : it was “to go to Tyburn to perform her devotions, where some Roman Catholic priests had been lately executed.”
The king, resenting this discipline, and having been ill used by the queen's family in other respects, complained of their King, misbehaviour to the French king. In short, the French part of the queen's court were paid their salaries and sent home. And though the king ordered his ambassador, the lord Carleton, to
ABBOT, represent the matter at length for the satisfaction of his most Abp. Cant.
Christian majesty, yet the excuse would by no means pass with the French ; they remonstrated against this discharge as a breach of the articles of marriage; and, in a word, the two crowns, on this occasion, came to an open rupture, which was not closed, as has been observed, till the latter end of the next year.
About this time there was a book published, entituled, “ A published, Collection of Private Devotions, or the Hours of Prayer.” It ceptions
was written by Cozens, prebendary of Durham, at the request against it.
of the countess of Denby, the duke of Buckingham's sister. This lady being then somewhat unsettled in her religion, and warping towards popery, these devotions were drawn up to recommend the Church of England farther to her esteem, and preserve her in that communion. This book, though furnished with a great deal of good matter, was not altogether acceptable in the contexture. The title-page sets forth it was formed
upon the model of a book of “ Private Prayers,” authorized Horarium by queen Elizabeth, in the year 1560. To give the reader regia authoritate, some part of it: after the calendar it begins “ with a recital editum, A.D. 1560,
of the Apostles' Creed in twelve articles, the Lord's Prayer in
seven petitions, the Ten Commandments, with the duties enprinted, A.D. 1573, joined, and the sins forbidden.” Then follows “ the precepts curn privilegio, by
of charity, the seven sacraments, the three theological virtues, the three kinds of good works, the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, the twelve fruits of the Holy Ghost, the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, the eight beatitudes, the seven deadly sins, their opposite virtues, and the quatuor novissima." And, after some explanatory prefaces and introductions, were subjoined, “ the forms of prayer for the first, third, sixth, and ninth hours, and likewise for the vespers and compline, formerly called the canonical hours.” Next to these was "the Litany, the seven penitential Psalms, prayers preparatory for receiving the holy eucharist, prayers to be used in time of
sickness, and at the approach of death ;" besides many others. It was li This book, though approved by Montaign, bishop of Loncensed, Feb. don, and licensed with his own hand, was somewhat surprising
at the first view; and some moderate persons were shocked with it, as drawing too near the superstitions of the Church of Rome; at least they suspected it as a preparation to further advances. The top of the frontispiece had the name of Jesus
in three capital letters, J. H. S. ; upon this there was a cross CHARLES encircled with the sun, supported by two angels, with two devout women praying towards it. This representation, though innocent enough, did not pass without censure. It was not long before Pryn and Burton, two malcontents, appeared against it.
Indeed, it is no wonder to find the “arriere ban?” of the Puritans drawn out upon this occasion. Pryn called his performance “ A Brief Survey and Censure of Cozens, his cozening Devotions." And here, not distinguishing between popery and primitive practice, he falls blindly on Cozens's book, and, without either judgment or justice, condemns every thing in the public devotions and offices of the Church of Rome. But notwithstanding all this vehemence, and the clamours of the party, the book gained ground, grew up into esteem, and was approved by many of those who scrupled it at first.
On the 17th of March a new parliament met at Westminster. 4.D. 1627-8. This parliament, to show their concern for religion, brought ment meets. in "A Bill for reformation of sundry abuses committed on the Lord's-day.” There was a statute to this purpose, made in the first year of this reign. And here it was enacted, “ That 1 Charles I. no persons should come out of their own parishes on the Lord's-day for any sports or pastimes whatsoever : nor that any bear-baiting, bull-baiting, interludes, common plays, or other unlawful exercises and pastimes, should be used by any persons within their own parishes.” But then the act does not define what those other unlawful exercises and pastimes are. Whether this omission was intended for a connivance at other relaxations, is somewhat uncertain. To proceed,
To proceed, “ those who offended in any of the premises were to forfeit three shillings and four-pence, toties quoties, for the use of the poor of the parish.” This act was fortified and extended to farther prohibitions by the present parliament. And now “carriers, car- 3 Charles 1. men, and drovers, who travelled or followed their business on Sunday, were to forfeit twenty shillings; and butchers, that killed or sold meat that day, six shillings and eight-pence for
And by another statute, “ Those who either went beyond sea, or sent any person into foreign countries, to be trained up in popery, were disabled from suing, from being executors or
Arriere ban is a general proclamation, by which the king of France summons to war all that hold of him.
3 Charles 1.
ABBOT, administrators, made incapable of any legacy, deed of gift, or Abp. Cant.
to bear any office within the realm ;” and over and above, 743. “ were to forfeit all their goods and chattels, all their lands,
tenements, rents, annuities, offices, &c. during life.”
This parliament sat till the 26th of June, and was then prorogued to the 20th of October. Some time before this prorogation, the commons brought in a charge against Dr. Manwaring for preaching arbitrary doctrine. This divine had lately, in two sermons before the king at Whitehall, delivered himself very indiscreetly to this purpose :
“ That the king is not bound to preserve the subjects in extravagant their legal rights and liberties; that his royal will and absolute
command in imposing loans and taxes, though without the consent of the parliament, ought to be obeyed by the subject, under the penalty of eternal damnation ; that those who refused to comply with this loan transgressed the law of God, insulted the king's supreme authority, and incurred the guilt of impiety, disloyalty, and rebellion ; that the authority of both houses is not necessary for the raising aids and subsidies ; that the slow proceedings of such great assemblies were not suitable
to the exigencies of the state ; and that, by going thus far Rushworth's about, princes must of necessity be clogged and disappointed
in their business.”
Collect. vol. 1.
This, without doubt, was extravagant divinity, subversive of the Commons the constitution, and preaching directly against a great part of and censured the Statute-book. The declaration of the commons against by the house of Lords.
Manwaring was delivered to the lords by Mr. Pym, who
managed the impeachment with vigour and advantage enough. April 21, This sessions, a bill was brought in for the augmentation of Wharton livings; and the commons, having turned themselves into a MSS. from committee of the whole house, a remarkable speech was deliArchbishop
upon this subject by sir Benjamin Rudyer. He directs Collections. See the case
his discourse to Mr. Pym, then in the chair :of Impropriations, &c. Append.
* MR. Pym, Sir Benja
“ I did not think to have spoken again to this bill, because min Rudyer's I was willing to believe that the forwardness of this committee speech for
would have prevented me; but now I do hold myself bound mentation of small livings. to speak, and to speak in earnest.
“ In the first year of the king and the second convention, I