moved, the three Scotchmen were consecrated, October 21, 1610, in the chapel of the Bishop of London, by the Bishops of London, Ely, Rochester, and Worcester. The king now issued a high commission for Scotland, and made the bishops commissioners. Instructions were also issued by him for the conduct of the bishops and the administration of ecclesiastical discipline. One important matter, indeed, was lacking in these arrangements. The Church in Scotland as yet had no liturgy, and therefore no uniformity in the performance of divine service. An attempt to introduce this a few years later looked so dangerous, that the design was abandoned. Towards the end of the next reign a serious attempt to introdue a liturgy so excited the people that the episcopacy planted with so much care was overthrown, and Scotland remained without the higher order of the ministry for upwards of a century.

§ 18. Within a fortnight after the consecration of the Scotch bishops, the English primate had breathed his last (November 2, 1610). In an incumbency of six years Bancroft had done much to produce at least an outward conformity, and by his vigorous measures had succeeded in weeding out of the Church of England the most forward and pronounced of those who favoured the Presbyterian platform. He had done this, indeed, at the cost of some apparent injustice in forcing a conscience test upon men who were living quietly; but in the increase of zeal and earnestness, which resulted from his vigorous action, the Church was a considerable gainer. The high claims which the Primate had advanced for Church authority, his contests with the judges and with Parliament, had served to render the Church unpopular, and the dislike beginning to be strongly felt against the king, had attached itself also to the clergy whom he favoured and upheld. This was a serious evil, as the Puritans gained immensely in power and influence thereby, and, upon the whole, it is probable that at the death of Bancroft the Church was really weaker, in its hold upon the country, than it was when he acceded to the primacy.

1 Collier, vii. 365; Heylin's Presbyterians, 388; Spotswood.

NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

(A) BISHOP OVERALL'S CONVOCA

TION BOOK.

neighbours, or that when any such new forms of government begun by rebellion, and after thoroughly settled, the authority of them is not of God, he doth greatly err." This doctrine offended the king in two ways. He thought that it implied that his own title was one de facto and not de jure. "All that you and your brethren have said of a king in possession (for that word is no worse than what you make use of in your canon) concerns not me at all. I am the next heir, and the crown is mine by all rights but that of conquest." And again, by not allowing resistance in any case, and so not justifying England's assistance of the Holland

made God the author of evil, and declared tyranny to be His authority. The king thus utterly refused to give his sanction to the work of Convocation, and it is probable that the divines themselves were somewhat ashamed of it, as their treatise did not see the light for many years. Singular to relate, it was at last published by Archbishop Sancroft after the Revolution, under the idea, apparently, that it gave support to the principles of the nonjurors. It does, however, exactly the reverse, as it attributes the jus divinum to the de facto government. The book is printed in the "Anglo-Catholic Library.”

It appears that after the 141 canons had been completed, at the next session of Convocation, the king committed to the clergy the task of forming a number of canons on civil government, with a view of justifying in certain cases resistance to authority, and thus the rendering of assistance to revolted subjects of neighbouring princes. He says in his letter to Doctor Abbot: "My reason of calling you together was to give your judgments how far a Christian and Protestant king may concur to assist his neighbours to shake off their obedience to their owners, he considered that they had almost sovereign, upon the account of oppression, tyranny, or what else you like to name it. All my neighbours called on me to concur in the treaty between Holland and Spain, and the honour of the nation will not suffer the Hollanders to be abandoned, especially after so much money and men spent in their quarrel. Therefore, I was of the mind to call my clergy together, to satisfy, not so much me, as the world about me, of the justice of owning the Hollanders at this time." (Preface to Overall's Convocation Book.) The divines having this subject entrusted to them proceeded to investigate the origin of government, and its claims to obedience jure divino. They drew up a number of canons, together with the grounds or reasons on which the canons were founded, the purport of which is to give the most absolute right to rulers, and to take away all rights of resistance from subjects. It is even laid down that the Israelites would not have been justified in quitting Egypt had not Pharaoh given his consent. But though they took away all right of resistance from the subject, they nevertheless laid it down as certain that when this resistance had proved successful and a change of government had been effected, the ruler de facto had the same claims to obedience as the ruler de jure. This strange doctrine is set forth in Canon xxviii.: "If any man shall affirm either that the subjects when they shake off the yoke of obedience to their sovereigns and set up a form of government among themselves, do not therein very wickedly, or that it is lawful for any bordering kings to invade their

(B) CHELSEA CONTROVERSIAL

COLLEGE.

The love of controversy was so strong among the divines of the reign of James, that Matthew Sutcliffe, Dean of Exeter, left by will lands to the amount of £300 a year, and £4000 in addition, for the establishment of a College at Chelsea for the study of controversial divinity. The king approved the scheme, and caused the college to be incorporated by royal charter. The college was empowered to dig a trench to the river Lea, and to erect engines, works, etc., for supplying London with water, A provost, 17 fellows, and 2 historians were appointed; the king issued his letters to the archbishop to stir up the clergy to contribute. The design, however, was not popular. A college was built at an expense of £3000, but this in Fuller's time "stood like a lodge in a garden of cucumbers." The Court of Chancery restored Dr. Sutcliffe's

lands to his rightful heirs, and the college fell into the hands of the person who had the title to the land on which it was built.-(Fuller.)

(C) BISHOP ANDREWES' SERMONS, AND FIELD OF THE CHURCH.

them. The other to lead to amendment of life, and to good works, the fruit of true repentance. Of the first kind he made a sermon not long since, which was most famous, and though courtiers' ears are commonly so open as it goes in at one ear and out at the other, yet it left an aculeum behind in many of all sorts. The sermons of Bishop Andrewes, the And Henry Noel, one of the greatest most famous preacher of his day, were gallants of those times, sware as he was collected and edited by Bishops Laud a gentleman, he never heard man speak and Buckeridge. As to their matter, the with such spirit. Of the second kind I sermons are learned, pregnant, exhaust- may say all his sermons are, but I will ive full of striking thoughts and happy mention but his last that I heard the 5th applications. As to their manner, they of last November, which sermon I could are in the highest degree peculiar, and wish ever to read on that day." (Harringaltogether opposed to the taste of the ton's Brief Survey of the Church of Engpresent day. The preacher tortures and land, p.-145). Dr. Field, Dean of Gloutwists his subject, divides and sub-cester, wrote a treatise of the Church, in divides, indulges in puns and word-split- five books, "to meet the assaults of the ting, jumbles together English, Latin, Romanists rather than the Puritans.” The and Greek, often produces effects alto-object of his work is to show that the gether ludicrous. It is hardly possible to imagine any one listening to these sermons without his risible muscles being sorely tried. Yet there is everything in them belonging to the highest Christian oratory. It is only in the way in which the subject is treated that there is any drawback, and this was the taste of the day. These sermons were greatly admired. The king far preferred Andrewes to all other preachers. Sir J. Harrington, a courtier, and not of a specially religious turn, thus speaks of his sermons: "Two special things I have observed in his preaching that I may not omit to speak of-one, to raise a joint reverence to God and the prince, to spiritual and civil magistrates, by uniting and not severing

Church of England has the notes of a true church. The treatise is a very learned and able one, and especially remarkable for its temperate and candid tone. It would not, however, satisfy high churchmen, as Dr. Field does not hold the apostolical succession as a necessary note of the church. In his view, in cer tain cases "the care and charge of the Church may devolve on the Presbyters remaining Catholic, do likewise the ordaining of men to assist them and succeed them in the ministry." One especially valuable part of this treatise is that in which the author exhibits the ground common to the Anglican and Greek Churches, and indicates the desirableness of intercommunion.

CHAPTER XXIV.

ABBOT'S PRIMACY-CALVINISM: THE REACTION AGAINST IT.

1611-1625.

§ 1. Abbot's appointment to the Primacy. § 2. His character. § 3. Poverty of the clergy. § 4. Burning of Bartholomew Legate at Smithfield. § 5. Burning of Edward Wightman at Lichfield. § 6. Puritanism recovers influence. § 7. Abbot's influence checked. § 8. Lowness of principle among the bishops of the day. § 9. Parliament attacks Bishops Harsnet and Neill. § 10. A Benevolence from the clergy. § 11. Mr. Peacham's case. § 12. The case of Commendams and the king's prerogative. § 13. Case of Mr. Edward Sympson. § 14. Case of John Selden-his retractation. 15. Case of Mr. Trask. § 16. Book of Sports for Sundays. § 17. King sends deputies to Dort. § 18. The Spanish Match influences religious policy. § 19. Rise of Williams to be Lord Keeper and Bishop of Lincoln. § 20. His seeking for further preferment. § 21. Recommends Dr. Laud for a bishopric. § 22. Accidental homicide by the archbishop. § 23. Indulgence to Romanists. § 24: King endeavours to restrain preachers. § 25. Uneasiness in the country at the indulgence to Romanists. § 26. Abbot's letter. § 27. The English Church service in Spain. § 28. The first Romanist bishop in England. § 29. The Parliament of 1624. § 30. Attack on Richard Montagu. § 31. King James dies-his influence on the Church.

§ 1. Ar the death of Bancroft it was the general expectation that Andrewes would be nominated as Primate. He was by far the most distinguished divine of the Church of England at that period. In depth of learning, devotion of life, and oratorical power, he exIceeded all his fellows. He had shown his skill on the admired topic of controversy in his treatises against Bellarmine. He was a great favourite with the king, who had promoted him to the See of Chichester (1605), and that of Ely (1609). When, therefore, the bishops met and agreed to recommend Andrewes to the king as the fittest person for the primacy, they were doubtless under the impression that they were only giving the strength of their approval to that which the king had already decided upon in his own judgment. Unfortunately, however, there were other influences at work. The Earl of Dunbar was a favourite with the king, and had done his work in Scotland effectively by bribing (as is generally supposed) the General Assembly at Glasgow to favour episcopacy. The Earl of Dunbar had as his chaplain, friend, and adviser, Dr. George Abbot, Master of University College, Oxford. Abbot was also well known to the king. He had been three

times vice-chancellor at Oxford, and in his capacity of head of the University had waited on the king at Woodstock. It was to Abbot that the king addressed his letter when he found fault with the proceedings of the Canterbury Convocation. But Abbot had also another special recommendation. He had written a preface to a book, which was supposed to demonstrate the reality of the conspiracy of the Gowries, and in this preface he had described King James as "zealous as David, learned as Solomon, religious as Josias, careful of spreading the truth as Constantine, just as Moses, undefiled as Jehosaphat or Hezekias, clement as Theodosius."1 After this Lord Dunbar had but little trouble in obtaining for him the highest post in the English Church. He had been made Bishop of Lichfield (1609), Bishop of London (1610), and while the bishops were deliberating upon Andrewes, the king had already given him the promise of the primacy.

§ 2. A more unfortunate appointment could scarcely have been made. Abbot and his brother, the Master of Balliol, had long been the great upholders of Calvinism and Puritanism at Oxford. He was a man of a narrow mind and a morose temper. He had never had any experience of clerical work. His learning was not deep. His opinions were chiefly formed from the writings of the foreign reformers, and he did not apprehend the great position of the Church of England. Having been employed all his Oxford days in squabbling with Laud and Arminianism, he carried the same partisan views to the highest position in the Church. Honest, sincere, and bold as he showed himself on several occasions, he yet was a most unfortunate Primate for the English Church.

§ 3. What the clergy especially needed at this time in their ecclesiastical head, was a large-hearted sympathy for their extreme poverty and degraded social position. In this Abbot was altogether wanting. His predecessor Bancroft had brought a bill into Parliament, which, if it had been carried, would have done much to relieve the wants of the clergy.3 to give a considerable help to the poor vicars. But Abbot does not appear to have concerned himself about the matter.

1 Wrangham's Life of Abbot, note.

His successor Laud was able

He was

2 William Laud, fellow, and afterwards president, of St. John's, was the leader in Oxford of what may be called the " Church party." To him the two Abbots were bitterly hostile, but Laud's influence soon became, in spite of them, predominant in Oxford.

It was proposed by this bill to give power to take tithes in kind, to make abbey lands which had been exempted liable to tithe, to make all parks and warrens altered from tillage within the last sixty years, all parks disparked, all lands of parishes depopulated, liable; to renew the tithes of lambs' wool and wood; to allow the demise of lands to the Church, notwithstanding any statute of mortmain.