A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



the altar,' ^^^ the singing of anthems instead of psalms, the wearing of ' Baby- 

 lonish robes called copes . . . embroidered with images' instead of 'decent 

 copes,' ^™ and so forth ; whilst it was averred that strange and novel doctrines 

 had been imported in sermons by the reforming prebendaries.'" It was for 

 these reasons, probably, that Archbishop Harsnett, of York, took the extreme 

 step of proposing to visit the diocese of Durham.'" Bishop Howson at once 

 wrote off to Laud, then bishop of London, and quoted precedents to show 

 that the idea, if not unheard of, was unconstitutional. ' The people,' he says, 

 ' now on the first motion proclaim that they know none but God, the king, 

 and Saint Cuthbert, which is their bishop, to whose government they submit.' 

 The protest was successful, and the visitation abandoned. Later in the year 

 (1630) Howson undertook his primary visitation and gave certain ordinances 

 to the dean and chapter, in which it was directed that ' to prevent scandal of 

 innovation the uniformity of Common Prayer used before the alteration in 

 the time of the late bishop be observed.' '" The State Paper containing these 

 injunctions is indorsed hinc illae lacrymae, which may lead us to suppose that 

 the precept was not palatable. The bishop's own position was difficult. He 

 did not fully sympathize with Smart, but owing to the excited state of feeling 

 in England he found it best to temporize, and in the end"* rather took his 

 side. It would seem that despite a partial incrimination of Cosin for the 

 offences alleged in introducing changes without due authority,"' the ultimate 

 issue was to justify his party, so that the triumph lay almost wholly on the side of 

 the reformers and innovators. Some evidence of this is given in the acts of the 

 High Commission, which show renewed activity after the final sentence given 

 at York in 1630. A comparison of their acts from this time with what was 

 done in 1627 shows far greater vigilance, and a very much widened range or 

 inquisition. Moral offences, irreverence, profanation of the sacraments, 

 hindering divine service, assaults on the clergy, defamation, fortune-telling, 

 are some of the various cases from all parts of the diocese which multiply in 

 and about 1630."' 



Bishop Howson was promoted to the see of Durham when he was 

 seventy-three, and was succeeded by a prelate of much the same advanced 

 age. No post-Reformation bishop had found the see of Durham a bed 

 of roses, but no one had so uneasy a tenure as Bishop Morton (1632-47), 

 the pathos of the situation being intensified by his distinguished merits and 

 his great age.'" The new bishop was of a somewhat different school from his 

 immediate predecessors. The friend of Casaubon and of many well-known 

 scholars, Morton represented rather the school of Hooker than of Laud. He 

 was an ardent apologist of the Church of England, but in a day when strong 

 language was used and vehement action taken, Morton was as conciliatory as 



»^' Surtees Soc. PuM. Hi, 179. "" Ibid. 184. "" Ibid. 186. 



"' S.P. Dom. Chas. I, vol. 162, No. 32. 



"^ Ibid. vol. 186, Nos. 97, 107 ; cf. Surtees Soc. Publ. Hi, No. 202. 



"* This is not quite the vievi^ of the editor of the Surtees Soc. volume, ibid. 204, foot-note, but is 

 justified by the bishop's own correspondence ; cf. S.P. Dom. Chas. I, vol. 154, No. 95. 



'" Complacent reference to Cosin's fine and temporary suspension is given in the articles previously cited, 

 Surtees Soc. Pub!. Hi, 191-2. 



"* For the Acts of 1629 onwards, see Surtees Soc. Publ. xxxw, passim. A summary (if it maybe trusted) 

 of 1627 is given by Dr. Carter in his previously cited reply to Neal, p. 44. 



"' A very eulogistic and almost contemporary account of Morton was written by his chaplain^ 

 Dr. Barwick. For his ' Catholic Apology ' and other important works see Diet. Nat. Biog. 



46 



