« PreviousContinue »
By the way, this nobleman, who was lord-treasurer, had a CHARLES deep design, which they were by no means aware of. His business was to promote unacceptable measures, to push things
770. to extremity, and ruin the bishops. He was apprehensive, it of this disseems, these men might grow too big for his interest; and like. particularly that Maxwell, bishop of Ross, endeavoured to supplant him in his post, and grasped at the treasurer's staff : Guthrie's and believing the rest of the bishops inclined to second Memoirs. Maxwell in his ambition, he proved a mortal, though a secret enemy, to the whole order. And now the opportunity presenting fair, he prevailed with some of the most sanguine to give him their letter to the archbishop of Canterbury. Thus furnished, his lordship posted to court, told Laud there was no reason to be apprehensive of danger ; that the old bishops were men of phlegm, and overgrown with spleen and timorous
That if Laud could prevail with the king to trust this earl with the execution, he would venture his life to go through with the business, without any considerable ruffle. Laud not suspecting the treasurer's integrity, especially being recommended by letters from those bishops he confided in ; Laud, I say, for these reasons, not suspecting any design, was much affected with Traquair's report : and though he did not think it proper this affair should be managed by a layman, yet he procured himself a warrant from the king to command the Scotch bishops to go forward with the undertaking at the utmost hazard ; threatening them withal, that in case they moved languidly, and threw in unnecessary delays, the king would remove them, and fill their sees with men of more zeal and resolution. This order was executed ; but the report of the event must be respited to the next year'.
In the mean time, it may be observed, that the manner of the manner introducing this Common Prayer was somewhat extraordinary, bringing and gave a plausible colour for disgust; for it was never laid Common before the representing part of the Church, nor passed in a acceptable. general assembly. The Scotch presbyters could never be reconciled to this method, and thought the authority of the Church would be entirely lost by thus resigning to the regale. Further, they were not a little prepossessed against the use of the liturgy: and more than that, they neither liked a
1 Laud always remembered the first clause of the axiom, “fortiter in re-suaviter in modo." Had he remembered the second, he might have saved the constitution.
in the Scotch
LAUD, form so resembling the English book, and much less the alteAbp. Cant.
These alterations being afterwards charged upon Laud by the Scotch commissioners, I shall mention his defence of some passages.
First, he takes notice these commissioners fall short in their proof that this affair was governed by his direction: having premised this, he proceeds to answer what was objected from the matter. The commissioners urged that the changes and supplements in the Scotch Common Prayer-book are taken from the mass-book and other Romish rituals ; and that by these the book is made to vary from the book of Eng
land. In answer to these objections, the archbishop replies, Archbishop “that the Church is only burnished and refined by the Reforfence of some
mation, and not melted down and made a new one. That all
regular and defensible reformation retrenches nothing but error Liturgy. and wrong practice, and leaves unaltered whatever will bear
the test. That if these variations from the English service are good, it is no matter whence they are taken. That every part of the missal, or other popish rituals, are not corruptions. That there are many good prayers in them, neither is anything ill merely because it is there. That provided there is nothing superstitious or unlawful retained, the less alteration in the ancient service of the Church the better.” To this he adds, " that these variations were either taken from the first book
in Edward VI.'s reign, which is no popery; or else from some Hist
. of the ancient liturgies, which stand clear from all such imputations.” Troubles, &c. of Abr. The next thing which I shall mention, objected by these Laud, p. 113. commissioners, is the Scotch book's inverting the order of the
communion in the English Liturgy. To this the archbishop replies, “ that changing the order, either in the Communionoffice, or any other part of the service, is no disimprovement of the prayers, or any corruption of the worship. For, provided the prayers are all good, the method of their standing cannot make them otherwise, unless where the order is essential to a right performance. For instance, if the Absolution was read before the Confession, in such cases, changing the order would affect the quality of the service.”
And to come closer, though he does not find fault with the order of the prayers as they stand in the Communion-book of England, (“for God be thanked,” says he, “it is well,") yet if they will press him to a comparison, he believes the Scottish Liturgy
ought to have the preference: that this latter comes nearer CHARLES the primitive Church; and for this he appeals to the judgment of the learned. From hence he infers a great deal of obstinacy and weakness in calling this a new communion, only because some of the prayers are removed from their former situation.
Thirdly, (which is the last objection I shall report) the commissioners urged the oblation of an unbloody sacrifice, and this they pretend is Bellarmine's doctrine. To this the archbishop's answer is, “ that if Bellarmine means no more by the oblation of the body and blood of Christ than a commemorative representation of that great sacrifice upon the cross, the cardinal is in the right, as bishop Jewel freely acknowledges. As for the oblation of the elements, that is fit and proper," as Id. p. 124. the archbishop continues, "and that he is sorry it is not in the book of England'."
As to the unacceptable method of bringing in the Scotch Common Prayer, it is rather to be charged upon the bishops of that nation. For when the direction of this affair was debated, archbishop Laud advised the Scotch prelates to move with great precaution, to govern themselves by the advice of the lords of the secret council, and do nothing that might clash with the laws and constitution of that kingdom. But these bishops, it seems, thought themselves obliged to run a new course, and cross upon
the custom of the Church. They durst not trust their clergy with this affair, nor venture the book with a general assembly.
The English Puritans, finding the Scotch disconcerted, Bastwick, struck in with the humour, and played their libels upon the
Pryn, write hierarchy. Bastwick, a doctor of physic, led the way in a libels against pamphlet, entitled “ Flagellum Episcoporum Latialium ;” in archy. which he asperses the bishops' conduct, and taxes them with an inclination for popery. But this book being written in Latin, and therefore not likely to spread the infection so suc- 771. cessfully, he recollected himself, and, like Rabshakeh, railed in the vulgar tongue. However, this second pamphlet, called his Isa. xxxvi.
Îl. Litany,” had nothing extraordinary in it but coarseness and malice. And that Bastwick might not stand single in the field, Pryn takes care to reinforce him in two tracts, published this year: one is entitled “The Quench-Coal,” in answer to “The Coal from the Altar:” the other was called “ The Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus.” The design of it was to disprove
1 Vide Collier's tracts in his controversy with Spirkes.
LAUD, the apostolical institution of diocesan bishops. Burton, parson Abp. Cant. of St. Matthew, Friday-street, London, came into the cause
with somewhat more force and equal assurance. This divine, preaching in his parish on the 5th of November, took these
words for his text : “My son, fear thou the Lord, and the Prov. xxiv. king, and meddle not with them that are given to change.”
In this sermon he insulted the bishops in the most scurrilous language, and accused them of the deepest prevarication. He lays innovation both in doctrine and worship to their charge.
That they encroached upon the civil constitution, carried their 1 Edw. 6. jurisdiction over the laws, and broke through an act of parlia
ment. That they had falsified the records of the Church, and stuffed in the first clause of the twentieth article. In short, he arraigns them for notorious oppression; flourishes upon the fortitude of those who have withstood their impositions ; animates the people to remonstrate against them, and seems contented to run the utmost risk to undo them.
Being imprisoned by the High Commission for this scandalous invective, he appeals to the king, justifies his sermon in an apology, and afterwards addresses the nobility. In this last application he exhorts all degrees of people to appear resolutely in defence of the gospel against the bishops. And, lastly, he prints these discourses together, with a dedication to the king. Here he endeavours to prepossess the king with an ill opinion of the bishops' conduct. He tells his majesty their management tends only to create a misunderstanding between him and his people ; to alienate the affection of his good subjects, and draw an odium upon the government. That it was the business of these factors of Antichrist to break the public union, and subvert the constitution, that they might erect the throne of Antichrist upon the ruins. That the subversion of the Gospel, the rebuilding Babel, and the bringing in of popery, was the chief design of the prelates and their party: and that all their innovations, encroachment, and dangerous practice, were only introductive to this business. In his sermon, which from the text he mis-entitles, “ for God and the king," he makes a tragical complaint of persecution in Norfolk and Suffolk. “That in those counties (where Wrenn was now bishop) they had made the greatest havoc of good ministers, that had been known within the memory of man: that three-score were already suspended in that single diocese. And that by Christmas next, betwixt three or four-score more
must either take leave of a good conscience, or else be thrown CHARLES out of their function and subsistence. And, lastly, that in all queen Mary's reign, the faithful ministers of God were not harassed to this degree (in so short a time) in any diocese, or in the whole kingdom.” Wrenn, to wipe off this calumny, and rescue himself from so ugly an imputation, ordered his registers to be examined: and upon inspecting the records of his court, it was found there was not above thirty clergymen, lecturers included, that lay under any sort of ecclesiastical censure. That of these but sixteen were suspended ; and of these sixteen, eight had their restraints discharged, and were referred to a further time of trial. Burton's clamour of persecution might be disproved through several other particulars : but this may be sufficient to discover what credit is to be given to this reporter.
Cyprian. Archbishop Laud, in his annual account of his province, Archbishop
Anglic informs the king, " that the Walloons, and other foreigners in Laud's anhis diocese, especially at Canterbury, came orderly to their of his proparish churches, and conformed to his injunctions, within the limitation allowed by his majesty. That in the diocese of London the lord bishop acquainted him with three gross misdemeanours: that Dr. Cornelius Burgess was one instance of this misbehaviour: that this divine, in a Latin sermon before the London clergy, had thrown out several insolent passages against the bishops and government of the Church, and refused to give his diocesan a copy of the discourse.” That one Mr. Wharton, a minister in Essex, had made an indiscreet and scurrilous discourse in the pulpit at Chelmsford: but that, upon receiving a canonical admonition, he had been brought to a submission.
The third misdemeanour, which the bishop of London complained of, was the late dispersing of some factious and malicious pamphlets against the government of the bishops, and ecclesiastical constitution. And that his lordship further certifies, he has good ground to believe these virulent libels are written, or at least countenanced and dispersed by some of the clergy of his own diocese.
The bishop of Norwich certifies he found a general defect of catechising quite through the diocese; but has now settled that matter. That in Norwich, where there are thirty-four churches, there was no preaching on Sunday morning, except