« 이전계속 »
ᄂ 나 1846
PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.
HAMON L'ESTRANGE was the second son of Sir Hamon L'Estrange, knight, the descendant of an ancient and reputable family, seated at Hunstanton Hall, co. Norfolk. Nicholas, the eldest, was created a baronet in 1629, and died in 1656. Roger, the youngest, who became so well known by his numerous writings, was knighted by King James II. in 1684, as a reward for his loyal services, and died in 1705, at the advanced age of 884. Hamon L'Estrange, the author of the Alliance, was twice married, and left a numerous issue. In the year 1655 he published a History of the Reign of King Charles I., which called forth the Observations of Dr. Peter Heylin. L'Estrange (according to Heylin) attacked these Observations with great asperity, in a pamphlet, entituled The Observator Observed;' and in 1656, we are told that Dr. Heylin, “with admired wit and elegance, gave Mr. L'Estrange a most severe yet civil correction,” in his 'Extraneus Vapulansb;' to which L'Estrange alludes in his preface to the Alliance.
The first edition of the Alliance of Divine Offices was published in 1659, previous to the last review of the Common Prayer Book. The second edition, from which the present is reprinted, appeared in 1690. The third, bearing date 1699, differs from the two previous editions, in the addition
a See Blomefield's Hist. of Norfolk, of the present work will perceive that and Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses. he did not succeed in amending the
See Barnard's Life of Heylin, author's propensity to the use of such F: 225, &c. Heylin gives us
words. alphabetical list of the uncouth and « This will be borne in mind, as unusual words” used by L'Estrange in L'Estrange's remarks occasionally apthe History of Charles I. The reader ply to the book as it then stood.
of certain offices, which are stated in a copy formerly belonging to Dr. Brett, and in his handwriting, to have been made “by Henry Gandy, M.A,” a nonjuror. From this copy, by the kindness of J. H. Markland, Esq., in whose possession it is, the present edition has been furnished with the additional offices.
The following are the editions which have been generally consulted in verifying the quotations.
Opp. Ed. Bened.
S. Cypriani Opp. 1593.
COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD TO KING CHARLES THE FIRST, AND ONE OF
HIS MAJESTY'S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL.
It is not long since you gave an honourable reception to the History of St. Paul's Cathedrala ; behold here the history (for so it is in truth) of that cathedral's liturgy humbly presents itself to you. That address, indeed, created this. For God's house, and His worship, being twins of so indissoluble relation, why should their histories be separated in their dedication; and where could they find a fitter patron than yourself, who inherit, as an heir-loom of your noble family for many descents, so high a value for any thing whose concernment is religion? Such is the subject of both these histories, if I speak not improperly to call them two, which are of so similary argument, that this may rather be said the second part of that.
It is true this work had not (as that of my learned friend) the honour to result originally from your Honour's immediate command; yet this I can say, that long before I had finished it , I understood you had many years since recommended the same design to the endeavour of a learned pen, but understanding withal, that, for reasons unknown to me, the work was laid aside, I proceeded with no small alacrity, being glad
*[By Sir Wm. Dugdale, 1658]
I had made choice of an undertaking which your lordship honoured with such approbation. More glad shall I be, if, in the performance thereof, I have administered any thing available to the public good, or which may be a valuable consideration for you to own me, as you do, in the quality of
Your Honour's most humbly devoted servant,
Tue fatal pique between parties oppositely persuaded, concerning the liturgy and ceremonies of our Church, drawing nigh to its åkun and highest pitch about twenty years since, the noise of those clashings roused me up seriously to consider, that this was not a controversy, like many others, about trifling niceties, admitting a safe neutrality; but a controversy about a practical fundamental, wherein to err was to hazard the main. For if (as the non-conformists urged) the liturgy and ceremonies of our Church were absolutely and simply unlawful ; first, as being of man's device; and secondly, because extracted out of the Mass-Book, Breviary, and other rituals of the Church of Rome; then did the ordinances of our Church betray me all the while to an abominable compliance, no longer to be endured. But if, on the contrary, her religious rites and appointments had no such impious quality, if they were elemented of materials, not only lawful, but highly decent, then to withdraw my obedience to her sanctions would prove as dangerous on the other side. Being then necessitated to an election of one of these two, (for they admit no medium,) conformity, or separation, resolved I was to do it as it should be, that is, by examining what was said pro and con, for and against it, on both sides,