LAUD, sickness he declared himself in the communion of the Church of Exceptions against them answered. 794. The canons of this convocation were transmitted to York, and signed unanimously by that synod, without debating upon matter or form. And after the national Church had thus given them their authority, they were confirmed by the king's letters-patent under the broad seal. But all this countenance and regular proceeding was not sufficient to screen them from censure. Some were unpleased with the seventh canon, intituled, "A Declaration concerning some Rites and Ceremonies." This canon recommends bowing towards the communion-table, or altar. However, it is couched in very inoffensive terms, and lays no penalty upon the omission of this ceremony; and, which is more, all persons are desired to manage by the "rule of charity," and neither blame the practice or omission. However, notwithstanding the indifferency the matter seemed to rest in, some thought those who forbore the ceremony would be looked on as short in their conformity, and stand with disadvantage in the opinion of the prelates. But nothing occasioned more clamour than the oath enjoined by the sixth canon, which was pelted both from pulpit and press. The '&c.' in this engagement was reckoned a dark abbreviation, and that the meaning of it was not to be reached. But to this it was answered, that in the five preceding canons, made some time before, there was a particular recital of all the persons vested with ecclesiastical jurisdiction; that is to say, archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, deans and chapters, and other persons having peculiar and exempt jurisdiction. All these distinctions, having been particularly set forth in the first five canons, were in the first draught of this oath cut off with this &c. to avoid repetition. However, it was intended to engross the canons in the whole length of the enumeration, and then the exceptionable &c.' would have been thrown out, of course; but the king being tired with the charge of keeping a guard for the convocation, and the clamour occasioned by this extraordinary security, sent several messages to the clergy This bishop of Gloucester was Godfrey Goodman, formerly dean of Rochester. He came into his bishopric in 1624, and died a Papalist in 1655; after which the see of Gloucester remained vacant five years. 1. to press them upon dispatch. The houses being thus some- CHARLES what hurried, sent the canons to the press, and forgot to expunge this &c.' It was answered, Secondly. That the &c.' in the oath is so limited and explained by the following words, viz., "as it stands now established," that there can be no reasonable fear of a dangerous meeting. It was farther objected, that the requiring an oath not to consent to the alteration of the present Church government, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, deans and chapters, &c., was a confinement of the civil and ecclesiastical legislature; and tying the Church and State down to the decrees of a convocation. To be sworn out of liberty in this manner was reckoned the more unreasonable, because some of the orders specified in the oath, particularly deans and archdeacons, have no pretence to a divine right, and consequently cannot prescribe against alteration. To this it was replied, that the convocation never intended this oath for a restraint of their own authority, or to bar the clergy complying with such alterations, as might be afterwards lawfully made; therefore, these words, "I will never give my consent to alter the government of the Church," &c., imply no more, than that the clergy bind themselves not to be in a practice against the present ecclesiastical establishment, nor attempt an alteration in the Church, without the consent of those who govern. Lastly. It is objected, the person is to declare "he takes the oath willingly;" though, after all, there is no refusing it, without incurring the penalties of suspension and deprivation. But this pretended rigour is defended by a parallel instance in the oath of allegiance; for here the party is obliged to swear he makes this recognition "heartily, truly, and willingly." yet, notwithstanding the compass of this acknowledgement, the taking the oath is required under very severe forfeitures. Thirdly. The canons were charged with "encroaching upon the property of the subject." But this objection shall be postponed to the next parliament. And But after all it was thought the main exception against the convocation was their drawing the first canon so much to the service of the crown, and flatly condemning resistance of the government upon any pretence whatsoever. It is true in this they advanced no other doctrine but what was warranted by the laws, and asserted at length in the Homilies. But notwithstanding they went plainly upon the authority of Church LAUD, and State, some people were much unpleased to have their Ap. Cant. memory refreshed with this doctrine. This resentment, though smothered at first by the English malcontents, was spoken out by the Scotch commissioners. These Covenanters, amongst the rest of their articles of impeachment, "charged the archbishop with making canons against their just and necessary defence; and that he had obliged the clergy to preach such doctrine four times a year as was not only contrary to their proceedings, but to the doctrine and proceedings of other reformed Kirks, to the judgment of all sound divines and lawHistory of yers, as tending to the utter ruin and enslaving of all estates bles, &c. of and kingdoms." From hence it appears that the guarding the Archbishop government, the pinning the subjects so close to their duty, and declaring so strongly against rebellion, was the great A.D. 1640. grievance in these canons. To go back a little and touch upon the Trou Laud. Cant's the affairs in Ireland: in this kingdom a parliament met on the 20th of March, and sat till the 17th of June. At this Irish acts in session two acts passed for the benefit of the clergy. The favour of the first statute, entitled "An Act for Endowing Churches with Glebe Lands," is as follows: Church. "Whereas all beneficiaries with cure, especially vicars, are bound to perpetual residence; and yet, through the war and confusion of former times in this kingdom, the ancient glebes in many places are so obscured that they cannot be found out, by which means the incumbents are necessitated to perpetual non-residence; be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons in this parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that it shall be lawful for any devout person, without licence of mortmain, to endow churches having no glebes, or not above ten acres of glebe, with new glebe, provided the glebe of any one church so endowed do not exceed forty acres at the 15 Charles 1. most, and that the said lands be not holden in capite, or by knight's service." Irish Acts. cap. 11. By the next statute, the penalty of deprivation incurred by the incumbent, for not paying the twentieth part of his living to the crown, is lessened to a forfeiture of only the treble 15 Charles 1. value of the said twentieth part: this was the last parliament of that kingdom during the earl of Strafford's lieutenancy. Id. cap. 12. This summer the Covenanting Scots levied another army I. The Scots against the king, invaded England, overran the country to the CHARLES Tyne, forced the lord Conway to retreat, and seized Durham and Newcastle. The king marched against them as far as inade York, and was not unprovided to give them battle: but having England. reason to suspect some of the officers and centinels were tainted in their loyalty, and disinclined to fight the Scots, he consented to a treaty at Rippon: where, after some debate, the English and Scotch commissioners agreed to a cessation of The treaty arms. Secondly, that the Scotch army should be allowed eight hundred and fifty pounds a day during their quartering in England: which contribution was to be raised in the counties of Northumberland, Westmorland, Durham, and the town of Newcastle. Thirdly, the river Tees was to be the barrier to both armies and as to the main articles, they were to be referred to a farther treaty at London. at Rippon. Whitlock's Memoirs. the Trou Laud. L'Estrange, When the king was upon his expedition against the Scots, archbishop Laud received information out of Holland of a plot against his majesty that this treason was carried on in England by Seignior Con and his confidants: that these conspirators finding the archbishop resty as to any alterations in religion, resolved to dispatch him first: and that when this obstacle was removed, they did not despair of working the king's humour. The first discoverer of this plot was one Hist. of Andreas Ab-Habernsfeild, a Bohemian gentleman, physician bles of to the lady Elizabeth, who married the Paltzgrave; this gen- Archbishop tleman sent a friend of his with a narrative to sir William Boswell, his majesty's agent in Holland: Habernsfeild's friend Hammond. having sworn sir William to secrecy, it was agreed between Hist. of them, that the papers should be sealed, and sent by an express Charles 1. to the archbishop of Canterbury; Laud took care to have Habernsfeild's supthem put in the king's hands. His majesty at the beginning posed plot. of the next parliament, nominated a committee of lords to 795. examine this matter. In short, all the papers were read before the king and the committee. But it seems the narrative was "The pope's somewhat perplexed, and the proofs defective. That Laud did is said) plot not give much credit to this relation, appears by the manner &c. of his reporting this plot at his trial, and by his omitting Hist. of the the mention of it in his diary; in which, things of much less &c. of importance are taken notice of. The learned Wharton like- Archbishop, wise questions the matter of fact in his preface to the "His- Cyprian. tory of the Archbishop's Troubles," &c. And since there p. 452. King agents (us it my death, Troubles, Laud, p.163. Anglic. LAUD, was no prosecution upon the narrative, and the marks of Abp. Cant. truth were not sufficiently legible, I shall enter no farther into the story. August 22. To proceed: the king having lately marched against the Scots, a paper was dropped in Covent Garden, to encourage the apprentices and soldiers to attack the archbishop; but one of the mob having been executed for a late attempt at Lambeth, they had not courage enough to renew the enterprise. But, not long after, when the High Commission October 21. sat at St. Paul's, about two thousand Brownists insulted the court, pulled down all the benches in the consistory, and cried out they would have no bishops nor High Commission. Thus the king, by this tumult, was put to the expense of ordering a guard for St. Paul's, as he had done before at Westminster, for the protection of the convocation. The long parliament meets. Some of the members declaim against the hierarchy. On the 3rd of November, the long parliament, which proved so fatal to the king, met at Westminster. At the opening this session, the commons made speeches against the crown and the Church, in a very remarkable manner, and gave early indications of what followed. What they delivered against the bishops discovers a great deal of heat and disaffection, gives a strong countenance to schism, and charges popery at random. In short, there is much more satire and declamation than solid proof in these remonstrances. These gentlemen, that harangued with so much vigour, seemed to be angry with the bishops for their revenues and authority, and grudged them the benefit of the constitution. I shall pass over the exceptions some of the members made against insisting upon conformity, against the High Commission, against a power in the bishops to license books, and the clergy being put into posts of civil jurisdiction. I shall waive the recital, I say, of what was delivered upon these heads, because they are Rushworth's mostly made up of invective without argument. But from Bagshaw, one of the long robe, something more of law and logic might have been expected. Hist. Coll. part 2. p. 1342. et deinc. To give the reader the substance of this learned member's speech upon episcopacy. In the beginning of his discourse, he supposes an episcopacy of two sorts: the first, in statu puro, as it stood in the primitive times; the second, in statu corrupto, or in its modern declension. This latter condition he applies to the English hierarchy, and endeavours to prove that epis |