# The Church of England, Its Catholicity and Continuity/Lecture 5

LECTURE V
Representative Churchmen.
In our Lecture last week we gave the history of the Puritans and considered the value of their work. The events related came within the reign of James and Charles I. We saw the Church of England in a state of chaos. From all we said about the Church in that Lecture, you may have the idea that no one stood up in those times for the teaching and the doctrine of the Church in opposition to the Puritans. There were men, however, who fought hard for the Church; and these men ​were headed by Lancelot Andrewes and William Laud. We saw last time that Calvinism was the phase of religious thought which the Puritans chiefly expounded, and their desire was to model the Church of England in accordance with the Calvinistic method of Church government as seen at Geneva. Now a party existed in the Church to oppose this teaching throughout both James' and Charles' reigns. Its object was, as expressed by Mr. Lane,"To resist the advance of Calvinistic principles, as seen in Presbyterianism, by an appeal to history, reason, and Scripture; so as to demonstrate that episcopacy is a divinely ordered form of Church government, that the Church of England in her organization, discipline, ceremonial, doctrine, and liturgy could claim relationship to the Apostolic Church by an unbroken lineage; and that her reforms and repudiation of papal control did not put her out of harmony with other national branches of the Holy Catholic Church." This party continually dwelt upon the fact that the Church of England is an Apostolic Church; that its teaching was Catholic and not Protestant of the type of the Protestant teaching of the Continent which the Puritans in England represented; and that the Church had Sacraments committed to its charge which it was the duty of its ministers to see observed and preserved. The object of this party, in fact, was the very same as that of the Tractarian Movement at Oxford in 1833, which we shall consider in our next Lecture. Men belonging to this party strove hard to teach Churchmen of those restless days that it was their duty to be faithful to their Prayer Book in all its detail. They stood up for episcopacy ​in opposition to the Genevan rule of Church government. They opposed, and rightly opposed the teaching of Calvinism, because it was foreign to the Church of England and subversive of Apostolic teaching.
Now the Father of this movement against Calvinism was Lancelot Andrewes. William Laud, his personal friend, who had come under Andrewes' influence, continued the work he had begun and persevered in it till it cost him his head.
To-night I will briefly speak about the lives of these two men with the object of showing what they tried to do for the preservation of the Church of England. Remember that they lived at the time when the Puritans were trying to do the work of which we spoke last week: when the Puritans were trying to undermine the Church of England. I say, we will consider the work of these two men for our Church, for, believe me when I say it, that both Andrewes and Laud were faithful sons of the Church, and they had no other desire at heart than the Church's welfare, although you have often heard them described as Papists or Romanists. Sectarian historians say that Laud certainly was a Roman Catholic, and that he taught papal doctrines, that he would have handed England over to Rome. We shall see the truth of this this evening.
At the outset we should consider that these men lived in very troublesome days, and in days when men used means differing from our own to enforce their most conscientious convictions. Passions were stronger then than now. Bigotry was looked upon almost as a virtue. But to say these men were Papists is nothing short of calumny. They ​understood the Puritan movement, and saw its evils. They felt so keenly about the truth and teaching of episcopacy that Laud, at least, was urged to be somewhat too earnest and aggressive in his desires to put its enemies down.
I must speak first, in the order of time, of Lancelot Andrewes. He saw Puritanism in its infancy. His time extends from 1555, throughout the whole of Queen Elizabeth's reign, to the year 1626, two years after the death of James. He was spared the pain of witnessing the evil results of the Puritan movement of Charles' troublesome years. This divine was born in Thames Street, in the parish of All Hallows, London. His parents were religious people, and in circumstances sufficiently well-to-do to give their boy a splendid education and to leave him a fair-sized estate as well. His early training was received in London. He was sent to Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and became a Fellow in 1576, at the time when Puritanism was so popular in the University. He was of a very retiring nature, and in early days loved the quiet of the study rather than the pleasures of the field."What he did when he was a child and a schoolboy it is not now known," says his biographer; "but he hath been sometimes heard to say, that when he was a young scholar in the University, and so all his time onward, he never loved or used any games, or ordinary recreations, either within doors, as cards, dice, tables, chess, or the like; or abroad, as bats, quoits, bowls, or any such, but his ordinary exercise and recreation was walking, either ​alone or with some companion, with whom he might confer and recount his studies." It is certain that from an early date his mind was given over to scholarship and meditation.
Andrewes must have felt much out of sympathy with the teaching at Cambridge, and this would have led him to take the strong stand he did to uphold the teaching of the Church of England. Cartwright, the leader of the Puritans, was at the height of his power when Andrewes first went to the University. The reaction set in, and Cartwright was expelled from the University.
Andrewes made good progress in the University. After he had received his degree of B.A., he soon rose to be the head of his College, and was elected a Fellow. He gave his mind over to the study of the Greek and Hebrew languages, the last of which was so much neglected in those days, and became proficient in them. He received Holy Orders in 1580, and this circumstance led him to the study of theology, in which he became a complete master. He had a particular love for moral theology."He was," says Harrington, "a man deeply seen in all cases of conscience, and he was much sought to in that respect." Andrewes held many preferments in the Church of England. Coming under the notice of Walsingham, the Queen's Minister, he was made Rector of S. Giles', Cripplegate, and brought under the notice of the Court. He was elected Canon of S. Paul's and Southwell. Then he was Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. In Elizabeth's reign he was several times pressed to accept a bishopric, but he refused for conscientious reasons. He did not agree with Elizabeth in her custom of alienating ​a part of the revenues of Sees to the Crown. In 1604 he was Dean of Westminster. It was with the accession of King James that Andrewes came prominently into notice. There were good reasons why they should have been drawn to each other. The divine was without doubt the greatest theologian and the most profound scholar of his day. It is said that he could speak fifteen languages. The king also prided himself upon his theological knowledge. This must have formed a bond of friendship between them. Andrewes also believed in James' pet doctrine that kings held their position by divine right, and not through the election or will of the people. We now see Andrewes as one of the Bishops of the Bench. In 1605 he was Bishop of Chichester, in 1609 he was translated to Ely, and in 1618 to Winchester. Here he entertained King James at an enormous cost to himself.
In his position as Bishop, Andrewes, by his quiet life and his devotion to his work, gave a check to the efforts of the Puritans. In a small degree he was able to mould the public mind against their teaching. We read that he was present at the Wesminster Assembly of divines, called to consider the Puritan grievances, but we do not hear that he took much part in the discussion. He, above all men, desired peace, and if he saw this could not be procured, he would say nothing to irritate existing evils. He was asked at this Assembly to take part in the translation of the Scriptures. He was the head of a company to whom was assigned the translation of the Pentateuch, the Book of Joshua, and the Second Book of Kings.
Andrewes did not enter into controversy with the Puritans as Laud. He preferred above all to show them by his way ​of living how much he disapproved of their principles. He had great inflttence over his clergy. It was his first care to emphasize the need of purity of life. He spoke strongly and fearlessly to his clergy on this subject. In one of his sermons he spoke from the text"Take heed to yourselves." He said to the clergy: "You do, indeed, take heed to yourselves. Who denies it? It is the common report that you so do. You take heed, verily, to the enrichiug of your sons and daughters. You are so careful for your heirs that you are forgetful of your successors. … At the present," he says, "it is reported of us that we are more concerned with shearing than shepherding the sheep." It was by such advice as this that he exhorted Churchmen to give the Puritans no cause to complain of them.
Other things for which the Bishop especially pleaded, in his time, were the preservation of the doctrine of the Church of England, a higher standard of living among the clergy, and a warmer pastoral spirit. He says of clerical neglect:"If you attend not to the flock, the flock will attend to you. … While you are neglectful of the people, be sure that the people has its eye on you."
One side of Andrewes' character we must not pass over. He has been extolled by everyone for his high principle and the purity of his own life. Professor Gardiner says of him:"Going in and out as he did among the frivolous and grasping courtiers, who gathered round the king, he seemed to live in a peculiar atmosphere of holiness." In fact, as far as he possibly could considering his office, he avoided the life ​of the Court, and he would not be drawn into the evils that went hand in hand with familiarity with the Court. An anecdote lets us into Andrewes' character. Neale, the Bishop of Durham, and Andrewes were one day with the king, when the king asked,"My lords, cannot I take my subjects' money when I want it, without all the formality of Parliament?" Neale replied, "God forbid, sir, but you should, you are the breath of our nostrils." Andrewes sat silent. The king pressed him for an answer. "Sir," he replied, "I think it is lawful for you to take my brother Neale's money, because he offers it." A very pretty story, which shows us Andrewes' integrity, and that he would not be false to his convictions even to please his king.
We must next notice Andrewes' relations to the Roman Catholics. The time of King James was the age of papal plots, and Roman controversialists arose to poison the mind of the Church of England. They found a worthy opponent in Andrewes, although controversy was not what be loved. No man, however, had as much learning as he to meet the arguments of Bellarmine, the champion of the Pope of Rome. Andrewes disposed of the claims put forward by him by appealing to history. And it was acknowledged that Andrewes' work was unanswerable.
Andrewes could express himself in vigorous language, as the following quotation from this controversy will show. He was speaking of the popish plot of the 5th of November, and said it was"an abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place." It was, he said, "undertaken with a holy oath; bound with the Holy Sacrament (that must needs be ​in a Holy Place); warranted for a holy act, tending to the advancement of a holy religion, and by holy persons called by a most holy name, the name of Jesus. That these holy, religious persons, even the chief of all religious persons (the Jesuits), gave not only absolution, but resolution, that all this was well done: that it was by them justified as lawful, sanctified as meritorious, and should have been glorified (but it wants glorifying because the event failed; that is, the grief, if it had not glorified) long ere this and canonized, as a very good and holy act, and we had had orations out of the conclave in commendation of it—[this is the pitch of all]—this shrining it such an abomination, setting it in the Holy Place, so ugly and odious; making such a treason as this, a religious, missal, sacramental treason, hallowing it with orison, oath and Eucharist; this passeth all the rest."
As I said before, Andrewes was in his element in the seclusion of the study. He preferred that to taking an active part in the political troubles of his days. And he has influenced for good through the study far more people than he did in his political work. He is chiefly known for his sermons on the Incarnation, delivered in successive years before King James, and for his profound works on meditation and his soul-stirring prayers. Churchmen of succeeding years have thanked him for these benefits. By such publications he has helped to build up the spiritual life of hundreds of his successors.
He took but little part, I say, in active political movements of his time. We hear that he accompanied James and Laud to Scotland when the idea was first conceived to impose the Prayer Book on that nation, but we do not hear whether he ​agreed or disagreed with the movement. He was at any time ready to speak out on the side of justice when any political trouble agitated the nation. Abbot had accidentally killed a gamekeeper while out hunting. This was a serious offence in the eyes of ecclesiastical law. The question was as to whether a Bishop with blood on his hands, even though brought there by accident, was worthy of continuing in his episcopal office. Andrewes used his influence on behalf of Abbot."Brethren," he said, "be not too busy to condemn any for uncanonicals according to the strictness thereof, lest we render ourselves in the same condition."
Andrewes, unlike Laud, found the policy of rigour uncongenial. Had he lived in such troubles as Laud subsequently passed through, we cannot say what his conduct would then have been. That he would have been gentler in reform than Laud was there can be no doubt. And we cannot doubt, too, that he would not have sacrificed his principles, even though he should be called upon to be severe.
Now, in the last place, let us look at Andrewes from another point of view. He was a man of the most cultivated tastes. He was acquainted with, and could number among his personal friends, some of the foremost men of his time. He knew such men as Nicholas Fuller, and the great Bishop Cosin, of Durham. He knew Casaubon, Grotius, Bacon, Hooker, and George Herbert. He was called by Casaubon"The most wise and learned Bishop of Ely." "I acknowledged," he said, "his extraordinary courtesy and kindness towards me." Again, "He is a man whom, if you knew, you would take to exceedingly. We spend whole days in talk ​of literature—sacred especially—and no words can express what true piety, what uprightness of judgment I find in him." "I am attracted to the man by his profound learning, and am charmed by his graciousness of manner, not common in one so highly placed."
Here I must finish our consideration of the life of Lancelot Andrewes. It has been well to speak of him to show you that even in James' time, when the Church seemed to be going to destruction, there were men who stood up for its rights against the attacks of Puritans. There was at least one good Bishop, and that man Bishop Andrewes, who emphasized the teaching of the Church, and whose life was a model for his brethen to follow, who was as pious and gentle as he was undoubtedly learned.
WILLIAM LAUD.
William Laud, in very many respects, was a very different man from Bishop Andrewes. He held the same views as his predecessor on the teaching of the Church. We must come to the conclusion that he was a remarkable, a pious, though unfortunate man. He lived in the reign of Charles I., when England was torn asunder by many troubles. He lived to see the troubles brought to a head which began in the reign of James I. Laud was mixed up in the king's troubles to his own misfortune, because he believed in the doctrine of the king that kings were appointed by Divine right, and therefore it was the duty of the people to obey the rule and wish of the king. It was his misfortune that he held to this view of the king's office.The great question, you ​remember, in Charles' days was, "Should the king or Parliament be supreme in the land." It was found that they could not work together. Another great difficulty of that time was to solve the question as to whether the Church of England should be the Church of the country. You know the opinions of the Puritans upon this point. Laud was most bitterly opposed to them. It was on this last matter that he held very strong and decided views. His whole aim was to preserve the Church of England, but, unfortunately, he was arbitrary and unwise in his method of obtaining his object. He looked upon the Church government model of Geneva with a great loathing, and he preferred to lose his head rather than agree to it. But then William Laud lived in times more troublesome than the reign of James. We must not forget that for a moment. He lived in a time when men's strongest passions were called forth by the events of the age.
William Laud came into prominence as soon as Charles I. ascended the throne."He rose out of the mass of Court Prelates," says Mr. Green, "by his industry, his personal unselfishness, and his remarkable capacity for administration." He was born at Reading on October 7th, 1573. He was particularly fond of Oxford, his University, and he did much to elevate its standard of education. He was always the patron of learning."His plans for the promotion of sound learning," as a writer says, "were of the most munificent kind. He had employed his fortune as well as his influence in carrying them into effect. From his own private means he had endowed a Chapel in his native town of ​Reading, enlarged S. John's College at Oxford, where he had been bred, established an Arabic lecture in that University, and presented to the Bodleian Library as many Greek and Oriental manuscripts as he could procure from the East." These facts show his love for learning. Besides, he was an active teacher in the University. He was Divinity Professor at S. John's. Laud's rise was rapid in the ecclesiastical world. He became the Chaplain of the Bishop of Rochester. In 1616 he was Dean of Gloucester: 1621 he was consecrated Bishop of S. David's. Five years later he was translated to the Bishopric of Bath and Wells. In the year 1627 he was one of the King's Privy Council. He became Bishop of London in 1628, and on August 4th, 1633, he was translated to the See of Canterbury. He attained to these positions through many difficulties. The Puritans were ever his bitter opponents. At Oxford, as Divinity Professor, he imparted sound Church teaching to the undergraduates who came under his influence. This brought him into prominence, and the Puritans then saw the type of man they would have to deal with. When he was offered the Bishopric of S. David's he showed his firmness of character when the question of his consecration was under discussion. It was Abbot's duty to perform this service. But Laud would not allow this, because, as we have already related, Abbot had accidentally killed a man, and Laud, therefore, considered that Abbot was not "a fit" person to perform so solemn an office as the Consecration of a Bishop. Laud was ultimately consecrated by the Bishop of London and five other Bishops of the Bench.
The Church principles of Laud were much the same as ​Bishop Andrewes'. It was his object to raise the Church of England to its old position as a branch, though a reformed branch, of the Catholic Church. He strongly protested against the Puritan innovations, and no less strongly opposed, as Green has said, the peculiar doctrines of Romanism. He based his teaching upon the doctrines of the age preceding the Council of Nicea. He was so thoroughly opposed to the teaching of Calvinism that he stopped the introduction into England of Bibles from the Continent with elaborate marginal notes imparting Calvinistic teaching.
He restored more orderly methods of conducting public worship. At the Celebration of the Holy Communion it was ordered that everyone should reverently kneel on receiving the Elements, instead of communicating in any position that pleased. He revived the power of the Bishops' Councils. There was one point on which he favoured the Romanist. He preferred a celibate to a married clergy. But this he taught not as a doctrine of the Church, but because it was agreeable to his ascetic nature.
He was especially severe on the due observance of ceremonial. The strong opposition of the Puritans to this led Laud to be quite as severe as they in the other direction. The Puritans' hatred of ceremonial, led Laud to be correspondingly severe in his orders that ceremonial should be observed. He said, and said rightly, that it was an aid to worship and devotion. It was almost one of Laud's first acts on reaching Lambeth to restore the smashed windows, the organ, and the choir. He ordered the glazier to set up the broken crucifix again in the east window, and so anxious was he to see the work well done, that he helped with his ​own hands to piece the shattered fragments together. This reformation was not confined to his Lambeth Chapel, but he urged all his clergy to follow his example in this respect. Laud considered that copes, vestments, and genuflexions were very important aids to public worship. And it is because of these opinions that so many people have called him a Romanist. But we shall see the truth of this charge later in our Lecture.
It was when Laud became Bishop of London that he began to wield great influence over the ecclesiastical life of England. He was then the confidant of the king, and in many ways his adviser. One of his first acts as Bishop of that See, was to exert his authority against the growing Calvinism of the country. He drew up a declaration which he attached to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, to prevent the Calvinists from putting a Calvinistic interpretation on the Articles. By this declaration he forbad any clergyman to read any other than the literal and grammatical sense into the Articles. This declaration was put forward afterwards by Royal authority. The Puritans were greatly enraged at it. The Commons drew up a "vow" in reply, which said:"We, the Commons, do claim, protest, and avow for truth, the sense of the Articles of Religion, which were established by Parliament in the thirteenth reign of Queen Elizabeth … and we reject the sense of the Jesuits, Arminians, and all those wheresoever they differ from us." Here you see they accused Laud and the king of being Jesuits. Laud is clearly getting out of favour with the Puritans. His troubles began, however, with the part he ​took in the issuing of the Book of Sports in 1618, which spoke on the subject of pastimes and games on Sundays. The climax of his troubles came in 1633, when Laud went to Scotland with the king with the object of introducing episcopacy into that country. The Scotch were Presbyterians, and very Calvinistic in their theology. James had been brought up in the Presbyterian religion, and hated it, and he wished to establish episcopacy in Scotland, but was not able to do so. It was Laud and Charles, with their policy "Thorough," who attempted this. A liturgy was especially drawn up for the Scotch Church, and a day was fixed in the year 1637 when it should be read to the people. Laud was the chief instrument in this work. It was also ordered that the surplice should be worn in Churches. We must remember that it was the strong opposition of the Puritans to such things as these which urged Laud to be equally strong in enforcing conformity. The day arrived for the introduction of the reform. The minister was in S. Giles' Church to obey the Royal orders. He had no sooner begun to read, than a woman in the congregation hurled a stool at his head, and burst out in the hearing of all the people—"Dost thou say Mass in my lug." This small event roused the nation. The congregation was roused to protest against this new reform. This spread to the streets, throughout the whole town, and so passed from there to all Scotland. It is not my duty to show what followed this opposition. It was a very unfortunate stroke of business for Archbishop Laud. It lead to his downfall. He was altogether too arbitrary in his measures. "Stony Sunday," as that day was called, was not soon forgotten by ​the nation. Another fact led to the fall of Laud. That was his doings in the Court of Justice, called the Star Chamber. He made this a means of enforcing his ecclesiastical policy. Men of influence were brought before this Court, and their writings examined and condemned. Dr. Alexander Leighton, a Scotch divine, was one of them. He had written a work called"Zion's Plea against Prelates," in which he not only attacked the Bishops, but described the Queen as a "Canaanite and an idolatress." He was ordered to be whipped and branded and put in the pillory. He had his ears cut of and his nose slit. Prynne was another man who came in for punishment. He had written a book called "Histrio-mastix," which was against"stage plays, interludes, music, dancing, and other festivities." Some of the amusements he condemned were indulged in at Court. The Star Chamber therefore condemned his book, and he "was also sentenced to stand in the pillory, to have his ears cut off, to pay a heavy fine, and to be imprisoned afterwards." For all these methods of punishment the Puritan Parliament held Archbishop Laud chiefly responsible. But they were not just in their bitterness. It was not always due to Laud that these persecutions were allowed. They accused him of causing the punishment meted out to Prynne, but as a matter of fact Laud had nothing to do with this. He purposely kept aloof from it"because the business had some reflection upon himself," says Mr. Hore. However, the rage of the Puritans was aroused. Because of his connection with the Star Chamber,"On July 7th, 1637, a ​paper was affixed to the Cross in Cheapside declaring that the Arch Wolf of Canterbury had his hand in the persecution of the saints and shedding the blood of the martyrs."
In the year 1640, a mob attacked his palace at Lambeth, and desired to tear the Primate to pieces. In the same year he was impeached by the Commons of high treason, a charge which could not be proved. Fourteen articles were drawn up on which they hoped to condemn him. A Committee of Religion was appointed to inquire into the state of ecclesiastical affairs, keeping especially in view the work of Laud. This committee consisted of twenty lay peers and ten Bishops, but only four of them would act. Their object"was to inquire into innovations in doctrine and discipline, which had been made since the Reformation, and a sub-committee, consisting mostly of doctrinal Puritans was appointed to prepare matters for the committee.""Most of their proceedings," says Hore, "were directed against Laud. They complained (amongst other matters) of the practice of private confession, of the altar with a canopy over it, with candles lighted in the daytime; of the communion table being turned altar-wise and called an altar, and that people were taught to bow towards it; that the clergy said the prayers turning to the East; that there was a credence or side table on which the Elements were placed before consecration." Many other practices and customs were complained of, but these are the chief ones.
In the year 1641, Laud was committed to the Tower, and remained a prisoner for four years. A bill condemning him passed the House of Lords in 1645. But the king did not sanction it. Indeed, he wrote a free pardon. But the ​masters of our country at that time did not heed the word of the king. Contrary to the laws of the country they beheaded the aged Primate on January 12th, 1645.
In this Lecture it has not been my object to give a full and detailed account of the life of William Laud. I have desired especially to show you what his position was in the Church during the reign of Charles I. I will now pass on to consider his character.
In the first place, let us dwell upon the charge that Laud was a Papist. This was what the Puritans said of him, and many people hold the same opinion to-day. It was chiefly on this charge, in fact, that the Archbishop was condemned. Was Laud a Roman Catholic? You know the Puritans were his enemies, and you can seldom gather the truth about anyone from his enemies. Most decidedly Laud was not a Papist. He repudiated most of the essential papal doctrines. Laud's only object, as I have already said, was to restore the Catholic teaching of the Church of England. So far was he from being a Papist that he urged his clergy to take an oath to keep the papal power out of England. They had to subscribe this declaration:"I, A.B., do swear that I do approve the doctrine and discipline, or government, established in the Church of England, as containing all things necessary to salvation, and I will not endeavour by myself, or any other, directly or indirectly, to bring in any popish doctrine contrary to that which is so established; nor will I ever give my consent to alter the government of this Church by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans and Archdeacons, et cetera, as it now stands established."
​These words are surely strong enough.
"It was one of the most effectual acts" of the Puritans, said Southey, "to possess the people with an opinion that the king, in his heart, favoured Popery and that Laud was seeking to re-establish it. In both cases the imputation was nefariously false." The principle here indicated is very largely responsible for our difficulties to-day.
Laud was no Papist. It was through his influence that the great Chillingworth was urged to leave the ranks of Rome, not an action likely to have been undertaken by a Jesuit in disguise. In fact, Laud was a strong and very successful controversialist against the Romanists. He wrote a book called "Conference with Fisher," justifying the reformation movement. He said that the Papists were the cause of religious schisms in our country. He was so successful in his proofs of this that the Puritans even said that"he had muzzled the Jesuit and smote the Papist under the fifth rib." Laud refuted the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility from the history of the early Fathers. He made himself an enemy of the queen because of his opposition to the Roman religion. The Romanists certainly did not love him. Several times he refused a Cardinal's hat, which was offered him in the hope that he might render England subservient to the Pope. But Laud replied that before England could acknowledge the Pope's authority many things would have to be altered in the Roman religion. Then when Laud was beheaded there was great rejoicing at Rome. This could not have been the case had he been a Papist. Evelyn was at Rome at the time of Laud's death. He wrote in his diary: ​"I was in Rome when the news of Laud's death arrived. There was great rejoicing in Rome at it. They spoke of his murder as of the greatest enemy the Church of Rome had in England being cut off, and the greatest champion of the Church of England silenced." Laud, at his trial, referred to this charge of Popery, and distinctly denied it."Perhaps, my lords," he said, "I am not ignorant what party of men have raised this scandal upon me," i.e., the scandal that he was charged of endeavouring "to bring in Popery," "nor for what end; nor perhaps by whom set on; but I would fain have a good reason given me if my conscience lead me that way, and that with my conscience I could subscribe to the Church of Rome, what should have kept me here, before my imprisonment, to endure the libels, and the slanders, and the base usage of all kinds which have been put upon me, and these to end in this question of my life?" "In point of my religion … by God's grace, I have ever hated dissimulation; and had I not hated it, perhaps it might have been better with me for worldly safety than now it is. But it can no way become a Christian Bishop to halt with God."
Again, Laud said,"I was born and bred up in and under the Church of England, as it yet stands established by law; I have, by God's blessing and the favour of my prince, grown up in it to the years which are now upon me, and to the place of preferment which I yet bear; and in this Church, by the grace and goodness of God, I resolve to die. I have ever, since I understood aught of divinity, kept one constant tenour in this my profession, without variation, or ​shifting from one opinion to another for any worldly ends; and if my conscience would have suffered me to shift tenets or religion with time and occasion, I could easily have slid through all the difficulties which have pressed upon me in this kind."
No! Whatever the Puritans sought fit to affirm, Laud was not a Papist. Nor did he love Rome. He was charitable towards Romanists, even more than towards the Puritans.
A well-known Unitarian writer whose sympathy is entirely opposed to Laud's, in the interests of truth bears out the same fact about his character."There is no proof," says Mr. Taylor, "that either Charles I., or Laud, or any of the leading Churchmen, ever seriously entertained the thought of a submission to Rome. The adoption of so much that was Catholic in doctrine and ceremony was rather intended, like the efforts of modern Puseyism, to retain those who from disgust at the opposite extreme were strongly tempted to throw themselves into the arms " of Rome. So we conclude that Laud was not as bad as his enemies wished to make him.
One of the reasons why he was charged with Romanism, was due to his removing the holy table from the body of the Church to the old and accustomed place under the east-end window. By negligence and the Puritan influence the holy table had been placed in the centre of the Church, and formed a stand for hats and cloaks during the ordinary service. This outraged the refined susceptibilities of Laud, and he set about a reformation in this matter. As soon as he ​became Dean of Gloucester he put his principles into practice on this point, and the Bishop of the Diocese was so enraged at this that he declared he would never enter the Church again as long as Laud was there, and it appears that he kept his word. It is not difficult, however, to account for the Bishop's heat. The Bishop, a learned man, was a Calvinist, and"under him," says Hore, "the Cathedral was falling into decay, and the services resembled those of a conventicle." Laud was the last man to tolerate this state of things. He, therefore, restored order and reverence in worship. For a long time after these reforms there was a cry raised throughout the land against Laud, quite out of all due proportion to their importance.
Although Archbishop Laud was not a Papist, he did desire to see Rome reunited to the English Church. But, before that was possible, he stated that Rome would be compelled to lose most of its distinctive doctrines. Laud was what to-day would be described as a High Churchman and a Ritualist. He tried to enforce his views in very unfortunate times, and with a spirit which was not agreeable to the Puritans. He suffered, however, as much through the mistakes of the king as through his own acts of indiscretion. He was considered to have been the king's chief adviser, and whatever mistakes the king made were therefore visited upon himself. But the Puritans were blind, and future history has shown them to be as "blind leaders of the blind."
No! For the true character of Archbishop Laud we must not go to the opinions of his enemies. He was not what his enemies made him out to be. He was greatly misrepresented, ​and unscrupulously slandered. He was a good Churchman, and a good man for his times. He was a man more sinned against than sinning, and his bad acts of policy were not bad in intention. He was murdered by the Puritans as much out of hatred at his episcopal beliefs as through his influence against the Puritans. He had strong principles, but his fault was that he used wrong methods to enforce them. We must make allowances, however, for the time in which he lived, and we should remark that his enemies used more arbitrary measures than he used, to put down the teaching of men of Laud's school.
Southey, in his "Book of the Church," speaks very highly of Laud. He says,"His love of learning, his liberal temper, his munificence, and his magnanimity would have made him an honour and a blessing to the Church in its happiest ages; his ardent, incautious, sincere, uncompromising spirit, were ill adapted to that in which his lot had fallen. But the circumstances which brought on, together with his destruction, the overthrow of the Church and State, the murder of the king and the long miseries of the nation, were many and widely various; some of remote and foreign origin, others recent and of home growth."
It was not Laud's desire to be domineering and absolute. He did not court popularity; that was given to him without his own desire for it. Mr. Lane says of him,"He never wavered in his determination to do what he felt to be just and right when persons of high position were charged before him."
Laud spoke at his trial of the way he viewed his own ​work."I laboured nothing," he says, "I laboured nothing more than that the external public worship of God (too much slighted in most parts of the Kingdom) might be preserved, and that with as much decency and uniformity as might be; being still of opinion that unity cannot long continue in the Church when uniformity is shut out at the Church door." These words are almost a prophecy. They have been amply fulfilled, as you can see from the result of Puritanism in modern Dissent and Nonconformity. There must be uniformity to preserve unity, unity of doctrine, unity of religious ideals, unity in successful spiritual work.
Mr. Hore gives us a faithful account of Laud's character."The best test of his character is to be found" he says, "in the deep love which his friends and those who knew him well bore towards him. He must have been a man of ability, for although his enemies ascribe his rise in life to Court favour, no common man could possibly have risen step by step to the high honours which he held. That he was a generous patron of learning, even his enemies allow; no one ever accused him of love of money; and of his great munificence, the Church and his University are sufficient witnesses." Another writer says (Mr. Southey) that the Puritans afforded Laud"an opportunity of displaying at his trial and on the scaffold, as in a public theatre, a presence of mind, a strength of intellect, a calm and composed temper, an heroic and saintly magnanimity, which he never could have been known to possess if he had not thus been put to the proof." And Heylyn says:"Never did man put off ​mortality with a better courage, nor look upon his bloody and malicious enemies with more Christian charity." At his execution, Laud turned to the man who had to take away his life, and, after giving him money, said,"Here, honest friend, God forgive thee, and I do; and do thy office upon me with mercy."
It would be foolish, of course, to say that Laud had no faults. But what they were were such as men had in common with him, even those of his enemies. But to say that he was a bad man is very far beside the mark indeed.
It was equally false, the aspersion that he wished to subvert the law of England and to overthrow the customs of this country. The Puritans behaved in a shameless way towards him, quite apart from their act of unlawfully cutting short his life. They managed to steal his diary, which was meant for no eyes save his own, and this in his lifetime they published with interpolations and alterations, and used this amended copy as witness against him at his trial. Southey says that"Prynne published Laud's diary, being garbled in some parts and interpolated in others, artfully and wickedly; and when the Archbishop came to the bar, he saw that the book had been presented to everyone of the lords who were to pronounce sentence on him." Laud bitterly complained of this in his address which followed this event. He complained to the House that he had been searched to the very core."My diary," said he "nay, my very Prayer Book, taken from me and used against me, and that in some cases not to prove but to make a charge. Yet I am thus far glad even for this," he added, "for by my diary your ​lordships have seen the passages of my life, and by my Prayer Book the greatest secrets between God and my soul; so that you have me at the very bottom; yet, blessed be God, no disloyalty is found in the one, no Popery in the other."
It is from this diary that we are given deeper glimpses into Laud's religious spirit and piety. It is interspersed with prayers which were composed to settle his troubled mind in his daily occupations. Just before he was thrown into prison, he wrote,"I stayed at Lambeth till the evening to avoid the gaze of the people. I went to evening prayer in my Chapel. The Psalms of the day, and chapter fifty of Isaiah, gave me great comfort. God make me worthy of it and it to receive it. As I went to my barge hundreds of my poor neighbours stood there, and prayed for my safety and return to my house. For which I bless God and them." He did not return again to his home. For no toleration was shown to him by those who were opposed to his method of Church government. His dying address further unfolds to us his inner character. In this he prayed for his enemies. But I had better give it in his own words. This is a part of his prayer:"O Eternal God and merciful Father! look down upon me in mercy, in the riches and fulness of all Thy mercies, look down upon me; but not until Thou hast nailed my sins to the Cross of Christ, not till Thou hast bathed me in the blood of Christ, not till I have hid myself in the wounds of Christ, that so the punishment due unto my sins may pass over me. And since Thou art pleased to try me to the uttermost, I humbly beseech Thee, give me now, in this great instant, full patience, proportionable comfort, and ​a heart ready to die for Thine honour, the king's happiness and the Church's preservation. And my zeal for this (far from arrogancy be it spoken!) is all the sin (human frailty excepted, and all the incidents thereunto) which is yet known to me in this particular, for which I now come to suffer; I say, in this particular of treason. But otherwise my sins are many and great. Lord, pardon them all; and those especially (whatever they are) which have drawn down this present judgment upon me! And when Thou hast given me strength to bear it, do with me as seems best in Thine own eyes, and carry me through death, that I may look upon it in what visage so-ever it shall appear to me. Amen! And that there may be a stop of this issue of blood in this more than miserable kingdom (I shall desire that I may pray for the people too, as well as myself), O Lord, I beseech Thee, give grace of repentance to all blood-thirsty people. But if they will not repent, O Lord, confound all their devices, defeat and frustrate all their designs and endeavours, upon them which are or shall be contrary to the Glory of Thy great Name, the truth and sincerity of religion … the preservation of this poor Church in her truth, peace and patrimony, and the settlement of this distracted and distressed people, under their ancient laws, and in their native liberty."
This was a part of the prayer of the Primate now about to die. It rings with sincerity, and no man at the hour of death can trifle, can put on a mask of sanctity. It is rather the opposite to this. Great sanctity, true faith, come out of the man at that trying moment. The last words Laud uttered, just before the axe fell, were the words of a greater martyr ​before him "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," and thus his soul passed away.
"The Puritans tried Laud," says Southey, "in the burning fiery furnace of affliction, and so his sterling worth was assayed and proved. And the martyrdom of Cranmer is not more inexpiably disgraceful to the Papists, than that of Laud to the Puritan persecutors."
* ↑ Lane, Notes on Church History, p.120.
* ↑ Quoted from Isaacson, by Rev. A. T. Russell. Memoirs of Lancelot Andrewes, p. 4.
* ↑ Quoted by Ottley, p.15.
* ↑ Life of Andrewes, by Rev R. L. Ottley, p.32. Leaders of Religion
* ↑ Ibid, p.34.
* ↑ Quoted by Ottley, p.49.
* ↑ Ottley, p.49.
* ↑ Ottley, p. 70
* ↑ Quoted by Ottley, p.79.
* ↑ Ottley, pp. 96, 97.
* ↑ See Hore, p. 337.
* ↑ Short History, p.494.
* ↑ Southey, p. 451.
* ↑ Southey, p.451.
* ↑ Hore, p.341.
* ↑ See Green's History, p.512, and Hore. p.344.
* ↑ Smith's Small History of England, p.168.
* ↑ p.346.
* ↑ Hore, p.346.
* ↑ Ibid, p.351.
* ↑ Ibid, p.351.
* ↑ Quoted by Hore, p. 349.
* ↑ Book of the Church, p.445.
* ↑ Quoted by Hore, p.333.
* ↑ Quoted by Hore, p.357.
* ↑ Quoted by Southey, pp.468, 487.
* ↑ Quoted by Southey, p. 486.
* ↑ Retrospect of the Religious Life of England, pp. 70, 71 (Second Edition).
* ↑ Hore, p.331.
* ↑ p. 443.
* ↑ Lane's Notes, p.127
* ↑ Quoted by Lane, p.127.
* ↑ p.358.
* ↑ p.501.
* ↑ Quoted by Southey, p. 500.
* ↑ Southey, p.500.
* ↑ p. 489.
* ↑ Southey, p. 490.
* ↑ Quoted by Green, Short History, p.521.
* ↑ Quoted by Southey, pp. 498, 499
* ↑ p. 501.