« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
university, and thence, as tutor, into the family of the learned Isaac Casaubon, “who was not like,' says Laud, "to teach him any Popery. .
'. . After I became acquainted with him," the Archbishop goes on, “I wished him very well for his worth's sake, and did what I could to enable him to live. But sure if my 'intentions were so deep' as they are often said to be, he could be no “fit instrument' for me; he being a mere scholar and a bookman, and as unfit for, as unacquainted with, such counsels and projects as these men would make me author of."
Dr Grub has warrant, as we have seen, for saying that Wedderburn was “mainly instrumental in obtaining the restoration to the Order for the Administration of Holy Communion [in the Scottish Liturgy] of portions of the office which had been lost to the Church of England since the first Liturgy of King Edward the Sixth.”2 Deposed and excommunicated by the Glasgow Assembly, Wedderburn took refuge in England, and found protection with Archbishop Laud, but he died soon after at Canterbury (23rd September 1639), and was buried in the Cathedral there. An epitaph from the pen of the Archbishop describes him as "a man of antique probity and faith, and for his excellent learning a
descendants of those who had been most active in promoting the Scottish Reformation could be found in the ranks of the Episcopal party.
1 Laud, Works, iii. 374.
2 Ecclesiastical History, ii. 377. Wedderburn had also called Laud's attention to "some defects he had found in the Book of Consecration of Archbishops, Bishops, &c., as it was then used among the Scots--viz., (1) that the Order of Deacons was made but a lay-office at the best, as by that Book might be understood; and (2) that in admission to the Priesthood the very essential words were left out.”—Heylin, ' Life of Laud,' ii. 4.
great ornament to his fatherland.”
His portrait by Jamesone hangs in the ancient seat of his family, Birkhill, near Newburgh-on-Tay.
But while divines of both kingdoms had their part in the preparation of this Liturgy, it received some contributions also from the hand of royalty. King Charles I. directed (18th October 1636) (1) that “the Proclamation for Authorising the Service-Book should not derogate from his Royal Prerogative. (2) That in their Kalendar they should keep such Catholic Saints as were in the English, such of the Saints as were most peculiar to that kingdom (especially those which are of the Royal Blood, and some of the most holy Bishops being added to them): but that in no case St. George and St. Patrick be omitted. (3) That in their Book of Ordination, in giving orders to Presbyters, they should keep the words of the English Book without change, Receive the Holy Ghost, &c. (4) That they should insert among the Lessons ordinarily to be read in the Service out of the Book of Wisdom, the first, second, third, 3 fourth,* fifth, and sixth 4 chapters; and out of the Book of Ecclesiasticus 6 the first, second, fifth,
6 eighth, thirty-fifth, and forty - ninth chapters. (5) Th every Bishop within his family twice a-day cause the Service to be read; and that all Archbishops and Bishops make all Universities and Colleges within their dioceses, to use daily twice a-day
1 Bishop Dowden, Annotated Scottish Communion Office, p. 37
2 Conversion of S. Paul, Morning and Evening. 3 All Saints, M.
* Purification, M. and E. 5 All Saints, E.
6 The King afterwards deleted, for the Scottish Book, the chapters from Ecclesiasticus appointed for S. Mark's Day, and substituted two from Ecclesiastes (Appendix to Introduction).
the Service; 1 and (6) that the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, signed by his Majesty's hand, and the Proclamation for authorising the same should be printed and inserted in the Book of Common Prayer."2
This might have been sufficient to dispose of the charge brought against Laud that he had tampered with the copies sent to Scotland "without the King's knowledge, and against his purpose.” When accused of doing so Laud denied it with a heat that brought down on him the censure of his successor, Sancroft:- “This is as false,” he cried, “as it is bold: for let them prove that any one particular was so added by me to that book; and let no justice spare me. In the meantime here I take it upon my salvation” (this is what Sancroft marks as if objectionable) “that I inserted nothing without his Majesty's knowledge,' nor anything against his purpose.'”3 Nor does the Archbishop's denial stand alone. Into a copy of the English Prayer-Book, bearing date so late as 1637, now in the possession of the Earl of Rosebery, the King wrote with his own hand the changes he wished ; and there he notices every change that was made on the book (except those in the order of the Communion prayers ;
1 Alas! in our Universities now, have we more than one service on Sundays? In some of the Arts classes, it is said, even the opening prayer, not long since universal, has gone out of use.
Heylin's Life of Laud, ii., iv. (pp. 305, 306). In addition to the particulars thus mentioned, the king directed the Scottish bishops to see that the musical pointing of the (prose) Psalms was not neglected (Appendix to Introduction).
3 Laud, iii. 342. The accusation had been founded on a vague passage in the King's 'Large Declaration' (written by Dr Balcanqual).
which, however, his alterations on the prayers themselves prove that he had allowed). See Appendix to Introduction.
There can be no doubt, I fear, that the Scottish Liturgy, like the Book of Canons, was unconstitutionally introduced into the Church of Scotland; “brought in without warrant from our Kirk,” are the words of the Scots Commissioners; and few will deny that a tame acquiescence in a proceeding so outrageous would have been equally fatal to our civil liberties and to that authority in sacred things which the Church has received from her Divine KING. Whether it was the King? or the Scottish bishops who were most to blame for this exceeding folly, it is now hard to say; but in justice to Archbishop Laud (who has had so little justice), it is only fair to quote his own statement as to the line which he had taken: “If this [that the Liturgy and Book of Common Prayer was brought in without warrant from their Kirk] be true,” he says, “it was the fault of their own prelates, and theirs only, for aught I know. For though I like the book exceeding well, and hope I shall be able to maintain anything that is in it, and wish with all my heart it had been entertained there [in Scotland); yet I did ever desire that it might come to them with their own liking and approbation. Nay, I did ever, upon all occasions, call upon the Scottish bishops to do nothing in this particular, but by warrant of law. And further, I professed unto them before his Majesty, that though I had obeyed his commands in helping to
1 The King believed that, in presenting by his sole authority the Book of Canons to the Church of Scotland, he did but exercise the power challenged as a right of his crown by James VI. in his Letter to the General Assembly at Perth.-Laud, iii. order that book; yet since I was ignorant of the laws of that kingdom, I would have nothing at all to do with the manner of introducing it; but left that wholly to them who do, or should, understand both that Church and their laws.
And I am sure, they told me, they would adventure it no way but that which was legal.” 1
It is not necessary here to re-tell the oft-told story of the reception this Liturgy met with when it was read in S. Giles' Cathedral. Neither is it needful to detail the results which followed, the uprising of wellnigh the whole people, the institution of the powerful committees called "the Tables,” the National Covenant, the demand not alone for the withdrawal of the Service-Book, but for the abolition of Episcopacy, and the famous General Assembly which met in Glasgow Cathedral (1638), and gave effect to those demands. No events in the history of Scotland have been more fully described by our historians; and none live more vividly in the remembrance of the Scottish people.
A brief word, however, may be added on the subsequent influence of the Liturgy on which so much pains had been bestowed, and which, with hardly a
1 Laud, iii. 336. There was no risk to the Scottish bishops through Archbishop Laud stating these facts (December 1640): of the three most deeply concerned, Archbishop Spottiswood and Bishop Wedderburn were dead, and Bishop Maxwell was in Ireland.
2 Yet it is possible to exaggerate their unanimity. The important city of Aberdeen resisted the Covenant, its divinesthe celebrated “ Aberdeen Doctors” — writing powerfully against it. In many other places there was a minority on whom the Covenant was "forced at the sword's point” (Scott, ' Legend of Mon ose'); while everywhere. its advocates had to profess their loyalty to the King. (See ‘Sermons,' by Cant and others, at the Taking of the National Covenant.)