Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

everlasting infamy. The style of the book is in admirable keeping with its subject. It is written in the very spirit of Laud himself; and did we believe in the doctrine of metempsychosis, we should have been convinced that the soul of the Archbishop had taken up its residence in the body of his biographer. Mr. Lawson evi

dently possesses all his zeal for the trumpery of forms and ceremonies-all his penchant for the old harlot—all his narrow-minded bigotry and hatred of the men who presume to differ from him. His qualifications as a historian and a reasoner are another affair. It shall not be our fault if our readers do not duly appreciate them, and bestow on their Reverend possessor the meed of praise which justly belongs to him. him. Should our extracts call forth a larger portion of animadversion than we usually employ in these introductory articles, the nature of the case wiil furnish our apology. Had Laud only been celebrated in these volumes, we should probably have allowed them to enjoy at once the slumber to which assuredly they are shortly destined. But as Mr. Lawson, to vindicate his hero, has, in a manner the most unjustifiable and outrageous, abused men and principles that are dear to us as life and liberty and religion, he has no right to complain if we expose his ignorance and his malignity.

"William Laud was born on the 7th day of October, 1573, in the parish of St. Lawrence, Reading, a town of considerable importance in Berkshire, pleasantly situated on the river Kennet, and famous for its magnificent abbey, now in ruins, founded by Henry I. in 1126, and dedicated to St. James the Apostle. He was the only son of William Laud, by profession a clothier, and Lucy Webb, sister to Sir William Webb, of the same county, of an ancient and respectable family, who filled the office of Lord Mayor of London in 1591. His mother

[ocr errors]

had been once married, previous to her marriage with his father: but of her first husband we know nothing, save his name and occupation. He was John Robinson, an eminent clothier and merchant in Reading, by whom she had several sons and daughters, all of them respectably connected in after life. A younger son entered into holy orders, and was Prebendary of Westminster and Archdeacon of Nottingham, and two of the daughters were married to clergymen of considerable reputation in the church."-pp. 1, 2.

The meanness and obscurity of an individual's origin ought never to be regarded as his disgrace, provided that in his exaltation he does not entirely forget them himself. But if, when raised by accidental circumstances, which is frequently the case, both in Church and State, he

"Forgets the dunghill where he grew, And thinks himself one knows not who," it is not surprising that others remind him of it. This was the true reason why Laud was reminded of his plebeian parentage; though Mr. Lawson can account for these reminiscences only from "the disposition of the party," and "the low and scurrilous falsehoods retailed by the Puritans." This is a specimen of Mr. Lawson's opinion of the Puritans and of his mode of speaking of them, so early as page third of his work.

During his infancy, Laud was subject to illness, to such a degree that he was not expected to live. Having recovered, he received the rudiments of his education at the free-school of his native town, at which he continued till he was sixteen years of age. It is recorded, that, while he was at school, he gave so many indications of his future eminence, that his master frequently said to him, that he hoped he would remember Reading School when he became a great man. Little, however, is known of his juvenile years. In the month of July, 1589, he was sent to the University of Oxford, when only sixteen years of age, and was admitted a commoner of St. John's College, at that time under the superintendence of John

Buckeridge, afterwards its President, and successively Bishop of Rochester and Ely. This distinguished prelate was born at Draycot, near Marlborough, in Wiltshire, and was the son of Wil liam Buckeridge, and Elizabeth, daughter of a gentleman named Keblewhyte, of Baseldon, and cousin to Sir Thomas White, founder of St. John's College, Oxford. He was educated at Merchant Taylors' School, and in 1578 became scholar of St. John's, Oxford, and shortly afterwards Fellow of that Society. It was, perhaps, among the most fortunate events of Laud's early life, that he was under the direction of this

eminent man. Buckeridge was distinguished for his zealous attachment to the Church of England, particularly in opposition to the Puritans, who, notwithstanding the dislike eptertained towards then by Queen Elizabeth, and the severity which she felt it necessary to exercise, had already broached that wild enthusiasm which was destined to break out with violence in the succeeding century. Laud was not unmindful of his venerable and learned preceptor in the days of his elevation, and Bishop Buckeridge has left behind him most honourable memorials of his zeal for apostolical and primitive truth."—pp. 7

-9.

Of Buckeridge's zeal for " Apostolical and primitive truth," and his capacity for defending them, a ludicrous instance is furnished in the sermon which he preached, by royal appointment, for the conversion of Andrew Melville, and his Scottish associates. It was designed to prove the royal supremacy in ecclesiastical mat

ters.

It was chiefly taken from Bilson's book on that subject, and confounded the doctrine of the Presbyterians with that of the Papists. The parties for whose benefit it was preached insisted that it should be printed, that they might answer it; which was accordingly done. But when they were preparing to reply, they were ordered to separate, and made prisoners with the bishops. Yet Mr. Lawson, who had this fact before him, has the assurance to say, "He completely vanquished the Scotch Presbyterians."

mode of reasoning, and getting As a specimen of our author's rid of representations of Laud's character, furnished even by his friends and partisans, we extract the following passage. It is also a favourable illustration of his style of speaking of the parties with whom it is plain he cannot contend in argument, however he may overmatch them in the language of abuse.

"Respecting Laud's general conduct while at the University, we are informed by Wood, that he was at that time esteemed by all that knew him, (being little in stature) a very forward, confi-. dent, and zealous person.' It is not at all improbable, that he felt much of that rashness and buoyancy natural to youth, which would be more particularly liable to excitement on account of the influence of the Puritan faction in the University, whose enthusiasm it was impossible not to despise. But it does not follow, though his enemies, who eagerly caught at every thing to suit their purpose, endeavoured afterwards to make it appear, since he was uniformly the same man from his birth to his death, that he gave any extraordinary signs of haughty demeanour. It is to be remarked, that the testimony now before us is on the authority of the Puritans, and of those violent supralapsarians whom he afterwards so successfully opposed; who themselves were not too scrupulous in veracity, either in public who knows any thing of the crafty and or private, as is notorious to every one designing methods which they adopted to accomplish their own ends; and it will be much more apparent to him who the Puritan historian, or any of those impartially peruses the volumes of Neal, contradictions repeated by Messrs. Bogue and Bennet, in their history of Dissenters. Nevertheless, it may have so happened that Laud did conduct himself haughtily (at least reservedly) towards the Puritan faction in the University, nor am I at all inclined to exhibit him as destitute of any of the failings of humanity, or superior to the sallies of youth, before his mind was matured by experience and reflection. But it is unfair to allow sectarian prejudice so completely to obscure common sense, as to seize on the slightest peculiarities of youth, and fasten them on the actions of maturer years, as indications of what some men choose to cal

tyranny, and others popery. And thus much must be said of Laud, while only a private member of the University, that he then laid the foundation of his future eminence; that he was held in no small estimation; and that the fame which he acquired in all his public appearances is honourable to his genius, his industry, and his learning."--pp. 12, 13.

We do not know where a tissue of greater absurdity and misrepresentation is to be found than in the following passage, which the author seems to intend as an apology for calling names, and propagating slander.

"Elizabeth was now in the decline of

life, and the death of the unfortunate Essex had reduced her vigorous mind to a state of imbecility. Enthusiasm was, in consequence, making rapid progress at the accession of James. The Calvinism of Geneva had disgusted that monarch in Scotland, insolently as it was advocated by the Melvilles and their associates. It was highly necessary, therefore, that James should take measures, on his accession to the English throne, to oppose that insolent fanaticism which had been secretly kindling in the minds of the people for half a century, and disturbing the peace of the church by every new importation of zealots from the school of Geneva. Nor, while thus speaking of the dogmas of Calvin, and the grand features of Presbyterianism, would I be thought wanting in respect to those who differ from us. I speak of systems only, not of individuals, excepting so far as their public conduct is concerned. Our church has been incessantly attacked, but we are unwilling to retaliate, while we know the sure ground on which we tread. • Having a sure and certain word of prophecy, unto which it will be well for us to take heed,' we reject the fallacious doctrine of expediency, and assert with confidence the constant visibility and oneness of the church in all ages, from the days of its Divine Founder. Nor need the authorities on which our positions are grounded, be required of us: even Calvin himself could not reconcile them to his own opinions. To the merit of that Reformer, indeed, I willingly bear testimony: his learning is indisputable, he was a great man; but the same spirit which prompted him to pursue the mild, though mistaken, Servetus to the stake, was too amply inherited

by his disciples both in England and Scotland, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; by which the frenzy of a stern republicanism overthrew the government of the land, and, even after it was re-established, involved the northern part of the island in rebellion and bloodshed. The opinions he taught, as he conceived them to be derived from the Scriptures, require other proof than that which he furnishes: and those do greatly err, who believe them to be the doctrines of the Church of England. That church, it is consolatory to know, takes a much higher authority, and by the holy Scriptures it stands or falls."pp. 26, 27.

So Mr. Lawson's readers must understand, that when he bandies throughout his brious epithets of "fanatics, liars, the pages opproenthusiasts, hypocrites, and a long tribe of et ceteras, he means not men, but systems! Alas, poor gentleman, the horror of Presbyterianism and Calvinism seem fairly to have robbed him of his wits. Whenever they present themselves before him, he seems seized by the furies, and storms and raves like a maniac.

But let us hear this learned divine settling the doctrine of the Church, and putting to silence all the parties within and the parties without her pale. After the following passage, so lucid in its statements, and powerful in its argument, we shall surely hear no more about the different interpretation of the Articles, and the contest of the High Church and Evangelical Clergy.

"On no subject, perhaps, has there been greater dispute than on the meaning of the Articles of the Church of England. While the zealous Puritan rejected them in toto, both because they were not sufficiently Calvinistic to suit his notions, and because they contained that form of ecclesiastical polity which he abhorred; the Calvinist, on the one hand, who wished not to leave the church, discovered them to be thoroughly Calvinistic, and was content; the Arminian loudly asserted, on the other hand, that they contained the doctrines and tenets of Arminius, and cordially sub

scribed to them. Such was the procedure in the time of Laud, and such it is in the present day. Now, keeping ont of view the Puritan and the modern Dissenter as completely hopeless subjects, or, in other words, as men beyond the reach of argument or reason, nothing is more evident than that both the Calvinist and Arminian are decidedly wrong. The articles are expressed with such clearness, that he who candidly peruses them, and is gifted with an ordinary share of reason, cannot fail to perceive their meaning, and to acquiesce at once in their decisions; but it is most absurd to say that they are founded upon, or that they favour, the individual theories either of John Calvin or of James Arminius. A division has indeed taken place in the church in modern times, and an unaccountable zeal has now decided that the orthodox clergy are the Calvinists: those who deny Calvin's tenets being of course anti-evangelical. Yet, if the test of evangelism be the rash assumptions of the predestinarian, most unquestionably that evangelism rests upon a feeble foundation, and they do greatly err whose zeal is thus permitted to triumph over their reason. But the Church of England at once disdains a blind veneration for any frail and erring mortal, however great or excellent in the eyes of his fellow men. That the Articles of the Church are not Calvinistic, I hope to show in another place; and that they are not Arminian, I here assert, inasmuch as the tenets of Arminius were not propagated until a long time after these Articles were compiled. But if by Arminian (for language is arbitrary, and it matters not what may be the

name, however odious that name may be to the descendants of the champions of the covenant in the north)-if, I say, by Arminian, it be meant, that the Church of England in its Articles, not in its clergy, rejects and disapproves a rash inquiry into those secret things which belong unto the Lord our God,' if it rejects the horribile decretum of Calvin, on whose showing, to adopt the language of John Wesley, 'the elect will be saved, do what they will; the reprobate will be damned, do what they can,' and in all its public ministrations, formularies, articles, rituals, and homilies, asserts, that every man, without exception, who hears the glad sound of the Gospel, may become a partaker of the same, and a true member of Christ's body, as he did become in infancy by the washing of water and the renewing of the Holy Spirit,'--if, in short, it is the constant theme of the church that

he who cometh unto God, will in no wise be cast out,' and if its ministers are commanded to call on all men every where to repent, without any reservation of election or reprobation, then let it be called Arminian, for such is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. And if the Episcopal government of the Church be taken into account, in opposition to the Calvinistic system of ecclesiastical parity, by which the unedifying sight has often been exhibited, of preachers at war with one another, without a head to control them, or to impose on them ecclesiastical obedience, then let it be Arminian, it matters not, since the polity which is enjoined and practised, has been that of the church in every age, since the days of its divine Founder."--pp. 29-32.

Let us put together a few of the preposterous mistatements and unsupported assertions of this passage. They are really too absurd and ludicrous to merit a serious reply.

66

The zealous Puritans rejected the Articles in toto." This is an unblushing falsehood, equally respecting the Puritans, the Nonconformists, and the Dissenters. "The Puritan and modern Dissenter are beyond the reach of argument and reason." It is very true, if the argument and reason of Mr. Lawson be meant. "The Articles are expressed with such clearness, that he who candidly peruses them, and is gifted with an ordinary share of reason, cannot fail to perceive their meaning, and acquiesce in their decisions." Consequently, in the opinion of Mr. Lawson, all who have differed about their meaning, have been either fools or hypocrites, destitute of an ordinary share of rea

son

or of candour. "The zeal of the evangelical clergy triumphs over their reason;" and "the test of evangelism is the rash assumptions of the predestinarian"-Because the Articles of the Church were framed before Arminius was born, therefore the doctrines of the Church are not Arminian. The horrible decree of Calvin (a

[ocr errors]

vile misapplication of the phrase,) maintains that "the elect will be saved, do what they will; the reprobate will be damned, do what they can'

we

We e are so disgusted with the malignity and unceasing misrepresentations of this absurd writer, that we know not whether ought to go on, and yet we are scarcely begun. But as the book has an imposing exterior, and makes some pretensions to research, and presents a parade of authorities, our readers must bear with us some time longer.

Mr. Lawson goes on to abuse Archbishop Abbot, one of the most excellent and upright men who ever filled the See of Canterbury. But he was puritanically inclined, and was the friend of moderate measures. The friend and panegyrist of Laud must therefore be the enemy of such a man. He must also be the friend of Rome. That Mr. Lawson's leanings, like those of his "patron lord," are in that way, appears from the following exquisite defence of Ordination.

"The question has been often sneeringly asked by the Romanists, where was the Protestant Church before Luther? This question was common in the days of Laud, nor was it at all answered with satisfaction by the Puritan divines, who seldom abode by the argument, but went on to a discussion of certain doctrines, and spirituality in matters of faith. Now, that these are all right in themselves there can be no question, still there was another way in which the Romanists might be silenced, and the Catholic doctrine of the visibility of the church maintained. This position, therefore, Laud assumed, and he managed the subject with the ability of a master. While the positions of Abbot and others, who took refuge among the continental sectaries, were easily overthrown by the priests and Jesuits; they were at once staggered by the arguments of a more powerful opponent, who revelled not in an enthusiasm which they had long despised, but successfully opposed them with the very authorities to which they

themselves laid claim. The whole subject turned on the nature of the church -on its polity, and the ordination of the clergy-whether there actually existed an apostolical descent, and whence it was transmitted. To deny the validity of the orders of the Romish Church, is unquestionably absurd: for, however corrupt and degenerate that church is, it cannot in the least degree affect the ordination it confers. For if such were the case, there would then be a danvirtue in the ordination, which does not gerous position assumed, that there is a exist, any farther, than that no man without that ordination can lawfully and scripturally exercise the functions of the sacred office: and that he who does so, without being lawfully ordained to them, is actuated by that sectarian fanaticism which deluded multitudes in the seventeenth century, and produced an anarchy in the church unparalleled in the records of history. If there be no such thing as regular and valid ordination, then there is no ministry, and it matters not how the sacraments are administered, or by whom, seeing that one man has just as good a right to administer them as another. And if the orders of the Romish Church are to be rejected, as being part of the mark of the beast,' what he has to boast, or what hidden let the most zealous Dissenter tell us of virtue there is in his form of ordination. For the new inventions of modern times do not form the scriptural basis by which we are to regulate our ideas of ecclesiastical practice; and I hazard the assertion, even though it may be received with a sneer, that there is no Dissenting minister whose ordination is as valid or as scriptural as that of the Romish priests. And if tenaciousness of ordination be held as a remnant of popery, then why do Dissenters ordain at all, seeing that they submit to a practice, which, even though exercised in their own way, they cordially set at nought and despise? The truth is, every gift is not a grace: ordination is one thing, the doctrine taught is another: and he who imagines that the chief excellence of the Christian ministry rests in the mere act of preaching, and a human display of eloquence from the pulpit, labours under a most grievous delusion. The sacraments are among the ordinary means of salvation; and the efficacy of these sacraments is rendered void as well by the want of regular ordination, as by the unworthiness of the person partaking of them. Saviour himself, when he declared that his kingdom was not of this world, distinctly taught that the office of the

Our

« AnteriorContinuar »