6 and desire an amendment; it is therefore very unreasonable, that all who take degrees in the universities, many of whom may be members of parliament, shall be sworn beforehand, never to consent to any alteration. And though it is known to all the world that many of the conforming clergy are dissatisfied with some branches of the present establishment, yet they are to swear that they take this oath HEARTILY and WILLINGLY, though they are compelled to it under the penalties of suspension and deprivation. Some objections were made to the seventh and other canons, but these were the chief. Archbishop Laud, in his answer to the impeachment of the house of commons against himself, boldly undertakes to refute all these objections, and to justify the whole, and every branch of the canons; his words are these, "I hope I ' am able to make it good in any learned assembly in chris'tendom, that this oath, and all those canons (then made, and here before recited) and every branch in them, are just and orthodox, and moderate, and most necessary for the 'present condition of the church of England, how unwel'come soever to the present distempers."* Lord Clarendon expresses himself modestly on the other side; he doubts whether the convocation was a legal assembly after the dissolution of the parliament, and is very sure, that their proceedings are not to be justified. "The convocation-house, '(says he) which is the regular and legal assembling of the 'clergy, was, after the determination of the parliament, 'continued by a new writ under the proper title of a synod ; 'made canons, which it was thought it might do; and gave 'subsidies out of parliament, and enjoined oaths, which 'certainly it might not do; in a word, did many things which in the best of times might have been questioned, * Dr. Grey asks here, "Where does the archbishop say this? Our historian quotes no authority; and as he is often faulty when he quotes chapter and verse, so without it I am unwilling wholly to depend upon his bare ipse dixit." The editor is not able, at present, to supply here Mr. Neal's omission; but he finds the same words of archbishop Laud quoted by Dr. Warner, (who never refers to his authorities) as spoken in the house of lords. And the doctor expresses on them his belief, that as to many of the articles contained in the canons, the archbishop here undertook to do what he would have found it difficult to make good. Eceles. History, vol. ii. p. 535. Ed. and therefore were sure to be condemned in the worst." The parliament that sat after the restoration was of the same mind with his Lordship, forasmuch as these canons were excepted out of the act of 13 Car. II. cap. 12, and declared of no validity. Mr. Eachard is of opinion, that the synod that framed these canons was not a legal representative of the clergy after the dissolution of the two houses. But bishop Kennet, in his complete history, says that these public censures of the canons were grounded upon prejudice and faction; that it is hard to find any defect of legality in the making of them; and that if these canons were not binding, we have no proper canons since the reformation; he therefore wishes, them or some others like them, revived, because in very much of doctrine and discipline they are a good example to any future convocation; and, that we can hardly hope for unity, or any tolerable regularity, without some constitutions of the like nature. Strange! that a dignified clergyman, that held his bishopric upon revolution principles, should wish the subversion of the constitution of his country, and declare for principles of persecution. If I might have liberty to wish, it should be, That neither we nor our posterity may ever enjoy the blessings of unity and regularity upon the foot of such canons. Upon the same day that the house passed the abovementioned resolutions against the canons, several warm speeches were made against the archbishop of Canterbury, as the chief author of them; and a committee was appointed to enquire more particularly, how far his grace had been concerned in the proceedings of the convocation, and in the treasonable design of subverting the religion and laws of his country, in order to draw up articles against him. Next day the earl of Bristol acquainted the house of lords, that the Scots commissioners had presented some papers against the archbishop of Canterbury, which were read by the * "Mr. Neal," says Dr. Grey, "has given us all the objections of the Seats against the archbishop; and I am so old-fashioned a person, as to think, that the archbishop's answers to their objections should likewise have been produced by an impartial historian." He renews the same complaint against our author in his second volume, p. 173. Mr. Neal's reason, for passing over the archbishop's answer, appears VOL. Ih 49 lord Paget, and then reported to the house of commons, at a conference between the two houses. Their charge consisted of divers grievances (which had occasioned great disturbances in the kingdom of Scotland) ranged under three heads, of all which they challenged the archbishop to be the chief author upon earth. The first branch of the charge consisted of divers alterations in religion, imposed upon them without order, and against law, contrary to the form established in their kirk; as, his enjoining the bishops to appear in the chapel in their whites, (1.) contrary to the custom of their kirk, and the archbishop's own promise; his directing the English service to be read in the chapel twice a day; (2.) his ordering a list of those counsellors and senators of the college of justice, who did not communicate in the chapel, according to a form received in their kirk, to be sent up to him, in order to their being punished; (3.) his presumptuous censuring the practice of the kirk, in fasting sometimes on the lord's day, as opposite to christianity itself; (4.) to have been, that his grace evaded the whole charge at his trial, by pleading the act of oblivion at the pacification of the Scots troubles. But, as Dr. Grey has endeavored to supply Mr. Neal's deficiency, the substance of the archbishop's defences shall be given in the following notes; and the reader will judge of their importance, and of Mr. Neal's conduct in omitting them. Ed. (1.) His grace replies to this charge, "that he understood himself a great deal better than to enjoin where he had no power: and, perhaps he might express his majesty's command, as dean of his chapel in England, that the service in Scotland should be kept answerable to it here as much as might be." Ed. (2.) Here his grace pleads his majesty's command; and his hope, that it was no crime for a bishop in England to signify to one in Scotland, the king's pleasure concerning the service of his own chapel. Ed. (3.) The defence set up on this head by the archbishop was, the king's command; and that the form prescribed, which was kneeling, was an article of the synod of Perth, made in a general assembly, and confirmed by act of parliament. As to the requisition itself, he pleaded, that it amounted to no more, than if his majesty should command all his judges and counsellors in England, once in the year, to receive the communion in his chapel at Whitehall. Ed. (4.) The archbishop vindicates himself, in this instance, by ample testimonies from the fathers, and by decrees of antient councils, to prove that, in the antient church, it was held unlawful to fast on the lord's day. his obtaining warrants for the sitting of an high commission court once a week at Edinburgh; (5.) and his directing the taking down of galleries and stone walls in the kirks of Edinburgh and St. Andrews, to make way for altars, and adoration towards the east. (6.) The second branch of their charge was, his obtruding upon them a book of canons and constitutions ecclesiastical, devised for the establishing a tyrannical power in the persons of their prelates, over the consciences, liberties and goods of the people; (7.) and for abolishing that discipline and government of their kirk, which was settled by law, and had obtained amongst them ever since the reformation. For proof of this they alledged that the book of canons was corrected, altered, and enlarged by him at his pleasure, as appears by the interlineations and marginal notes in the book, written with the archbishop's own hand that he had added some entire new canons, and altered others, in favor of superstition and popery; and in several instanThe fact, there is no doubt, was so, and it gave the archbishop a ground of arguing with the church of Scotland on their practice; but would it justify the asperity of censure towards weaker christians; or exercise of authority, where every one ought to be persuaded in his own mind? Ed. (5.) His grace answers to this charge, that the warrants were not procured by him, but by a Scotchman, of good place, employed about it by the bishops; and that the high commission court was settled, and in full execution in the church of Scotland, in 1610, before ever he ed in public life. Ed. appear (6.) The archbishop absolutely denies, to the best of his memory, giving command or direction, for taking down the galleries of St. Andrews and urges, that it was very improbable, that he should issue such commands, where he had nothing, who in London, and other parts of his province, permitted the galleries of the churches to stand. As to the galleries and stone walls in the kirks of Edinburgh, they were removed by the king's command; not to make way for altars and adoration towards the east,but to convert the two churches into a cathedral. Ed. (7.) The term obtruding the archbishop thinks bold, especially as pointing at the king's authority, whose command enjoined the book of canons on the church of Scotland, and who in this exercised no other power than that which king JAMES challenged as belonging to him in right of his crown. His grace does not allow the imputations cast on the book of canons; and, if they did belong to them, he pleads that it was owing to invincible ignorance and the Scotch bishops, who would not tell wherein the canons went against their laws, if they did. As to himself, it was his constant advice, in the whole business, that no-. thing against law should be attempted. Ed. ces relating to the censures of the church, had lodged an unbounded power in the prelates over the consciences of men. The third and great innovation with which they charged the archbishop, was, the book of common-prayer, administration of the sacraments, and other parts of divine worship, brought in without warrant from their kirk, to be universally received as the only form of divine service, under the highest pains both civil and ecclesiastical; (1.) which book contained many popish errors and ceremonies, repugnant to their confession of faith, constitutions of their general assemblies, and to acts of parliament. Several of these errors are mentioned in the article, and they declare themselves ready, when desired, to discover a great many more of the same kind; all which were imposed upon the kingdom, contrary to their earnest supplications; and upon their refusal to receive the service book, they were by his grace's instigation, declared rebels and traitors; (2.) an army was raised to subdue them, and a prayer composed and printed by his direction, to be read in all the parish churches in England, in time of divine service, wherein they are called traiterous subjects, having cast off all obedience to their sovereign; and supplication is made to the Almighty, to cover their faces with shame, as enemies to God and the king. They therefore pray, that the archbishop* may be immediately removed from his majesty's presence, and that he may be brought to a trial, and receive such censure as he has deserved, according to the laws of the kingdom. The archbishop has left behind him a particular answer to these articles, in his diary, which is written with peculiar (1.) That the liturgy was brought in without warrant of the kirk," if it were true, the archbishop pleads was the fault of the Scotch prelates, whom he had, on all occasions, urged to do nothing, in this particular, without warrant of law; and to whom, though he approved the liturgy, and obeyed his majesty's command in helping to order that book, he wholly left the manner of introducing it; because he was ignorant of the laws of Scotland. Ed. (2.) His grace contends, that they deserved these titles, but he did not procure that they should be declared such but the proclamation fixing these names on them, went out by the common advice of the lords of the council. Ed. In the original, "This great fire-brand." Dr. Grey. |